We wouldn't be having that debate if the world could finally agree on a coherent and universal legal framework for internet-related offences, though.
Here's an example. An American posts something illicit under British law on a British-hosted website. Where was the offence committed – in the US, or in Britain? Nevermind the fact that the US wouldn't extradite over this, there's some reason to treat it as an action committed in Britain.
And if you don't like the idea of regulating speech, make it someonething else, like contacting a minor.
By the way, I would add that the US does claim universal jurisdiction over internet-related crime even if both the perpetrator and the victim do not fall under US jurisdiction. If an Indian scammer defrauds a Russian via a website hosted in the US, America will prosecute the Indian.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with regulating free speech, why should Britain not have the same right as the US?
I'm not saying I agree with regulating free speech, but I can see where they're coming from.
And I'm definitiely saying that this debate should've happened like 25 years ago. It's strange to me that no government really dared to regulate the internet for such a long time. Now it's too late, and even though the internet is a global thing, we still try to pretend like it's not.
Facebook and X last I checked, were US based. Telling us that we cannot use it from how we see fit to from where we are and while we are at it, that another foreign power is using a US based site, is a straw man IMO. Stick to the topic of the UK trying to regulate what a US citizen says on a US site, US domain, US company that the UK is using to benefit from with social media.
Create your own, host it there, and we will respect your laws on your site, your rules, hosted in your land. However that isn't this case now, is it? This site while being a US one I suspect is on a UK server. You might have had an argument with this one, but still not the case here.
Anyway since you went there, regulating what other citizens say on the internet is a cowardly thing to do. Facebook and X has a wonderful feature, called the block. You can run your pages how you see fit to to control the narrative. But we are still free to speak our minds until then. If you want to control it, use it accordingly. If not well you made a conscious decision to subject yourselves to it and that is on them, not us.
By the way, I am having trouble finding what an actual scammer committing an actual crime over the internet has to do with one speaking their minds. One isn't committing theft, the other is hurting fragile feelings. I am not seeing the correlation between the two however I am seeing a straw man.
Britain has no right to prevent freedom of speech of a US citizen on US soil using a site based in the US that Britain is using willingly and there's zero being scammed so you have no logic mixing the two together other than fallacy based one, you are using a bad illegitimate argument here my friend.
So IMO no, they have nothing to come from. Even their reporters are saying last they checked that this is Britain and not the ex Soviet Union, China, or North Korea.
m.jpost.com
It would appear the Rubicon has been crossed. 
