It might be hard to believe but some things were worse back then in terms of quality and choice.

Potato chips or crisps are an example of this. Today they’re both better and there’s far more choice. I don’t find there to be a whole lot of difference in quality of fresh produce either but choices of both where to get it from and the range available is greatly improved.

Things like confectionery (especially chocolate) and processed foods are way worse though.

Mileage may vary elsewhere, I’m in Australia.

A petition I started motivated a group of rich people to buy a really important music venue and save it from being demolished.

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.

…

Here as well. We’re obviously not among those who put travelling down as a hobby.

Edit: though my water supply is no issue