Weaknesses of Cyber Sovereignty

As with every ideology, there are some weaknesses. 

1. Protection of non-consenting individuals: Digital Laws taking precedence would allow a digital society for those who abuse children to theoretically get away with it. 
   1. Therefore, to address this issue, we strongly recommend that governments do not institute Cyber Sovereignty without this single condition, that it must not be used for the sexual abuse of children. It's critical that this be strictly limited to sexual misconduct, and not to further interpretations of raising children and marriage. Any attempt to tell parents how to raise their children further is antithetical to the concept of sovereignty as listed by the charter.
2. The dependence on national governments to implement Cyber Sovereignty means they may be tempted to implement it with special conditions or further restrictions. Cyber-sovereigntists must reject all other special conditions except the one mentioned by it's ideology in order to protect the integrity of the concept of Cyber Sovereignty. Not only that, governments should be pressured to adopt the Charter as it is in full.
3. If purely driven by ideology, cyber-sovereigntists implement Cyber Sovereignty as a legal concept too early, digital societies will be woefully unprepared to adequately deal with physical-life issues. Therefore, a pragmatic approach to implementation of building deep connections between members online first is the ideal way forward. This is purely a matter of optics. 
4. A societal rug-pull: A malicious digital society may enact a law to extract the property of a certain group of citizens for any and every reason. To prevent this, along with the concept of Cyber Sovereignty, the following general protection must be created:
   1. When a digital society makes a new law, it may immediately implement restrictions to prevent people breaking the law, such as stopping them entering a virtual world. However, actual penalties or seizures or the freezing of goods or assets or similar require the law to be widely published to the citizens of said digital society for at least 60 days. 
5. Governments will have every incentive to control many of the services as possible as these give them legitimacy concerning their high tax rates. However, they may find digital societies are much more efficient at taxing members effectively. Digital societies will never truly be functional or independent without the ability to both tax and limit the share of taxes remitted to governments, something governments have no incentive to do. 
6. In courts, defendants could contest the legitimacy of a digital society, leading to increased complexity. And this increased complexity will itself create a push for a registration system for digital societies.
   Digital societies must never be controlled by national governments, and therefore no registration may ever be created for digital societies, lest national governments gain control through the threat of removing this certification. Singular digital certification could also lead to global government issues.
7. Equal protection clause. When a digital society impacts something outside of itself and takes legal precedence, a constitutional argument may be made on behalf of the defendant that a particular case being judged by different rules violates the equal protection granted by many constitutions.
   And therefore, for cyber sovereignty to work, it needs to be as a constitutional amendment in the relevant countries, establishing the legitimacy and supremacy of the third pillar of law, which is the supremacy of digital societies, to take precedence in cases between their members. 
8. Full faith and credit: Full faith and credit has to be granted to digital societies in the physical jurisdictions where Cyber Sovereignty is implemented. Namely, digital courts that make a judgment must have their judgment enforced by physical governments. Every digital society with more than 30,000 citizens must have its corporations and judgments considered valid everywhere, without exception. 

However, to prevent an entire digital society being dedicated to a con of some sort, a single charter law which applies to all digital societies is necessary.

• No digital society may enact penalties or seize or freeze assets via a law not already created and reasonably widely published within that digital society for 60 days. 

How this works is that if an individual's assets are seized, they may sue the digital society in question if you