You sound like like you’re a desperate anime antagonist.

Some of them care about power, they all care about money. In this case it’s money.

So you left the day he took it over as well ay?

Nope, it’s money. Only some of them care about power. They all care about money.

the interaction that is done in Australia is not part of the business chain.

Then it’s not subject to our laws, which is why an Australian walking up to an Italian vendor in Italy is a bad analogy…no interaction is done in Australia. It doesn’t matter if it’s an Australian buying something in Italy, our laws don’t apply to your original analogy.

As for your last paragraph I agree and that’s probably one area where it will fail.

So it looks as if you’ve added ‘this but on the internet’ afterward, is that correct?

Taking that away, no, because my point with using an online store was that some interaction is done in Australia, as is the case with social media sites overseas that Australians interact on, in Australia. Replace online store for ‘mailed catalogue’.

selling Italian goods…

A better analogy would be ‘Australian buys Italian goods from online store in Australia’. Under your analogy no, because nothing at all is done in Australia, where your online shop would be, therefore it’d be subject to Australian law.

It’s still not a very effective law, though.

I saw someone earlier say it was on the basis of anonymity…people don’t actually have ‘accounts’, so there’s nothing to verify. How accurate that is I don’t know and I’ve never used 4chan.