I have no office or legal entity in the United States, yet there are US laws which, if I broke them, would cause the United States to attempt to extradite me. For example, see Kim Dotcom.

I strongly agree with you on the idea that companies and people should only need to obey the laws of the countries they operate in, but you must recognize that this idea is not currently the status quo, is actually fairly radical, and is strongly opposed by a lot of very powerful governments, including the United States.

Extradition typically relies on an action being a crime in both nations. Refusing to disable accounts critical of a government would not be against the law in America, and we also have no extradition treaty with Tunisia. She couldn't do squat.

They could try to extradite FB employees when they travel to countries they do have an agreement with.

Arguably it would be much, much harder if you had formal separation.

Kim Dotcom had servers in the US - in fact, nearly their entire server fleet if not entirely was in Virginia, vendors in the US, collected payment for illegal downloads and uploads in the US, in USD. Their primary domain was a .com, which is owned by Verisign, a US company.

This would likely not be the case if you were running on a ccTLD in your own country, hosted in your own country, at least.

>I have no office or legal entity in the United States, yet there are US laws which, if I broke them, would cause the United States to attempt to extradite me.

If you are in Canada and hire somebody to rob a bank in the US, you have violated American law and can be extradited. This works in reverse too. If you are in the US and hire somebody to rob a bank in Canada, you have violated Canadian law and can be extradited.

>For example, see Kim Dotcom.

Poor example because Megaupload had a US nexus.