What are you even asking for here? Sites like Reddit, Twitter and Tumblr cater to "American laws" (most of these aren't even laws, the US is generally quite liberal on sexual content and nudity; thus producing a significant chunk of the global supply of pornography) is due to their primary target or largest slice of ad revenue coming from Americans[1][2][3]. There's no law forcing themselves to self-censor, they generally do it for financial/accessibility (American traffic) reasons.

What it sounds like you're proposing is, if Denmark has carte blanche topless legality, that websites that want to operate in Denmark must respect their liberalism and allow said content. Which is far more draconian and intrusive. If a site wants owner wants to err on the side of conservative social values, that's their prerogative; create an alternative to fill the niche if you feel it's lacking. OnlyFans filled an entire void in that manner.

1 - "Two hundred twenty-two million users live in the US, which makes up 48% of the Reddit community." / https://thrivemyway.com/reddit-statistics/#Reddit-Usage-Stat...

2 - "The United States of America has at least 83.4 million active Twitter users" - https://datareportal.com/essential-twitter-stats

3 - "While Tumblr is used worldwide, the vast majority of its users are based in the U.S. Domestic visitors alone account for 42% of its overall traffic." - https://cloudincome.com/tumblr-statistics/

> Which is far more draconian and intrusive.

That will enforce less monopoly in social media, I am perfectly fine with that.

What an obtuse jump in logic.

There's a reason we do not allow monopolies to exist, liberitarians (like you) would call draconian too, but this is as much an obtuse jump as mine.

tl;dr: your last point didn't add anything to discussion, but is likely to offend

I’m not a libertarian, and straw-manning will get you no where.

There’s also a reason we don’t dictate platforms and content.

We don’t force people to attend or partake in topless/nude beaches despite allowing them to exist. We don’t force people to join political protests despite them being a protected activity.

In the same manner, we don’t force newspapers to publish content against their goal or audience. There’s no difference for a site platform. There’s no reason “ChristianGram” should be forced to host nudity for Danish (and other) Christians, simply because Danes are allowed to be naked if they like.

The fact that you don’t see how that’s equally tyrannical and intrusive is, honestly, terrifying.

What about public libraries in the US? Access to water? What if I was a monopolist with access to food who doesn't want to serve gay people?

> The fact that you don’t see how that’s equally tyrannical and intrusive is, honestly, terrifying.

I don't think you know what tyrannical means.

> What it sounds like you're proposing is, if Denmark has carte blanche topless legality, that websites that want to operate in Denmark must respect their liberalism and allow said content

That's precisely what I'm saying.

> Americans

The platforms will need to apply a different set of filters and moderation tools to anyone connecting from within inside the US. Just like they will do for those who connect from within Denmark.

What your proposing is forcing a site owner to host nudity/sexual content, obscene speech, etc. Despite their own personal beliefs, due to a random nation. And you literally don’t see how that’s the same as limited content for a nation such as China.

Your entire basic argument is fallacious. If tumblr stopped showing nipples due to US censorship, that’s one thing. There’s no law barring this and no one is bending to the US legal system, the site owner themselves made this choice to appeal to the largest, most valuable chunk of their demographic. And you, as another person, can make an equally capable site minus that restriction. If people demand it (as they did OnlyFans, Twitch, VK, etc), they will switch.

> What your proposing is forcing a site owner to host nudity/sexual content, obscene speech, etc. Despite their own personal beliefs, due to a random nation

Its not a random nation. Its that nation in which that site owner wants to operate. If he or she wants to operate there, s/he has to obey that country's laws when reaching out to that country's people. Its as simple as that.

> And you literally don’t see how that’s the same as limited content for a nation such as China.

I see it. Every country will limit their content per their own laws to the extent they want to do. That's what law is.

> There’s no law barring this and no one is bending to the US legal system, the site owner themselves made this choice to appeal to the largest, most valuable chunk of their demographic.

That means that basically those corporations just complied with the existing social sentiment and laws 'willingly' to avoid persecution. They can do the same, 'willingly' for other countries for 'appealing' to the users in those countries.

...

If you already 'willingly' comply by the legal and social paradigm of your country without the specter of the law coming down on you, you are not 'willingly' doing it in reality. You are doing it because you have to do it. 'Wording it differently' does not change the reality.

> Im wondering when will countries start preventing US tech platforms from enforcing US laws and US morals on the people of those countries.

This makes zero sense. How do you force anyone to not follow a law? Do you, say, force anyone to post nude pics just because a jurisdiction does not allow anyone to post them? How would that even work?

>How do you force anyone to not follow a law?

I'd imagine it be an ultimatum - if you enforce another country's laws on our citizens then you're also in violation of our local laws and will be fined, unable to operate in our country, etc

> if you enforce another country's laws on our citizens then you're also in violation of our local laws and will be fined

This makes no sense at all. Unless you're violating your own laws, which is not what you're arguing, then you're just complying with your own jurisdiction. Yo can't possibly be advocating punishing anyone for not violating laws in multiple jurisdictions.

Simple. The platforms would have to enact different filtering and moderation mechanisms for different countries based on the law in those countries. That would make them compliant everywhere.

> US laws

I don't really think this is about laws, but even in that arena, companies already do their best to avoid those within the US, nevermind internationally. See e.g. recent Patreon controversy for an example of this. There's man others. So I don't really think law is the problem here.

> US morals

This is the real issue and unfortunately these are finely weaved deep inside US corporate culture itself - they're part of culture fit for hiring in US multinationals and are thus highly unlikely to ever be disrupted from within the workforce of those companies.

> US laws

If companies 'willingly' comply with the existing social and regulatory landscape proactively, that's not something that happens 'willingly'. Its mental gymnastics to claim that they are doing it freely and not out of being obliged to.

That seems... inverse. "Your service is not allowed in the US because there's not enough boobies in it"?

Anyway the opposite is already true, all US based companies that want to operate within the EU all follow the GDPR. It, and a lot of US online moral codes, are IMO good for society as a whole.

If you still want to look at NSFW content, there's plenty of sources for that everywhere.

> "Your service is not allowed in the US because there's not enough boobies in it"?

No, the service will apply the filters and moderation tools to users from any given country separately. If the law in the US allows enough boobs and the US users post boob pictures, that's totally that legal ecosystem and userbase's thing.