I'd say it's more like, having a betting shop in Canada, but the only entrance is via an underground tunnel whose entrance is in the US. The US have said "the only use of this tunnel is to disobey US law, and so we're closing down the tunnel."
That analogy leaves me with a few questions: (1) is a "tunnel to Canada" a good analogy for "a .com domain hosted in Canada"? (2) Is it true/ a good thing that .coms come under US jurisdiction? (I think this is the case, but shouldn't be).
The problem arises because, unfortunately, .com domains are based under US jurisdiction. Given that, there's an option for US-local lawmakers to apply for a takedown.
> Is it true/ a good thing that .coms come under US jurisdiction?
it may be a historical fact, but it's not a general perception. The internet is global, and I (and probably many people) read ".co.uk" as "A UK-based business", for example. And ".com" reads as "a business on the net". ".com" has prestige as a top-level domain, even for companies that don't do much business in the USA. it says "worldwide" - like the internet.
I don't think the actual lesson is about .com domains, it is about doing online business with U.S. citizens, this, it turns out, might risk your website. And if you happen to be on a .com, .org or .net domain, it would simply make it easier for U.S. law authorities to persecute you.
That analogy leaves me with a few questions: (1) is a "tunnel to Canada" a good analogy for "a .com domain hosted in Canada"? (2) Is it true/ a good thing that .coms come under US jurisdiction? (I think this is the case, but shouldn't be).
The problem arises because, unfortunately, .com domains are based under US jurisdiction. Given that, there's an option for US-local lawmakers to apply for a takedown.