Trying to force this in the browser is too difficult technically, and too easy to circumvent.
The security services in my country, Romania (an EU and NATO member), are already doing that, or something similar to that. For example trying to access https://sputnikglobe.com/ sort of times out, either way, it doesn't work.
Can you clarify what you mean?
If this were the EU or US, and Google risked losing access to that market, they would comply. Way too much money on the table.
They don't employ (many) people here, don't pay a lot of taxes and generally don't do much cooperating on their own.
They can offer literal briefcases of money to politicians but, in General, that is not the way the EU works.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/12/eidas-20-sets-dangerou...
In Chrome, it's called "Safe Browsing", and it's currently optional, Standard, or Enhanced.
Sure, ordinary people already are heavily spied on and restricted. But the machines doing the spying and restricting have to run their own OSes as well. The inverse of the 'who watches the watchers' problem.
It's supposed to be monopoly on _legitimate_ violence.
Which is why organized crime and vigilantism are generally so much higher up on a government's priority list than single acts of violence. They represent legitimate threats to the government.
Violence is a choice that no government can take away. They can only threaten violence of their own. What validity does a government have when it claims it has the sole right to hurt others, including you? That is a fiction that led to the current state of things.
What right does sovereignty give a state to oppress its people?
None, I'm just telling you what will happen. The argument was not that people consented, but that first they'll outlaw circumvention and then hunt you down for continuing to try. The point is that there is no technological solution to oppression. Some people here have a certain naïveté that everything can be solved with technology but that view ignores actual power in the actual world.
> What right does sovereignty give a state to oppress its people?
Rights are given by states. Without states, you don't have rights, only capabilities. Rights come into existence when an alliance with a lot of capacity for violence imposes rules on the people within its reach that it allows itself to be bound by.
Governance is not a contest where you are awarded rule for being the best, or a trial where a wise man gives governance to those who deserve it. Governance doesn't care if you give it "credibility" or what "social contract" you have signed unless it decides itself that it cares about those things. The only credibility that a government needs is your belief that it will unleash violence upon you if you do not do what it says.
You have rights under government. Governments themselves don't need rights, unless they are subgovernments of more powerful governments that have granted them. Don't retreat into abstractions and fantasy. You can't defeat fascism by proving it wrong; it's not a Star Trek computer.
I also concede it takes more than an argument to fend off government, but playing along with "monopoly on violence" is so defeatist and pre-loads conversation with a guaranteed end result, when that end is not actually guaranteed. It can be fought.
People have a monopoly on casting votes.