> Why should it be the case that when you visit my personal website, which I happen to self-host, I have access to your IP address?
So when you misbehave, I have the means to block you in particular.
So when you misbehave, I have the means to block you in particular.
It might be meaningful under the model of direct HTTP, where you could be DoSing me or trying to exploit my web server. But if you don't contact me over HTTP, then that problem doesn't arise. There's no meaningful concept of blocking people from a Usenet post I write. Even for indirect HTTP, I don't need to block people from my GitHub Pages or from my HN comments. They're public.
If I add dynamic feature like a comment system or discussion forum to my website, then it becomes meaningful, but also at that point I can implement a way for you to consent to sharing your IP address with me as part of signing up.
What’s what with the internet is that it allows both types of models, and both are widespread and actively used today. It wouldn’t be hard for e.g. GH to run EU servers and manage mirroring all content and static sites so that traffic is roughly region local. I wouldn't be surprised if they did this to some extent just for efficiency concerns irrespective of any legal ones.
You also seem to be conflating TCP and HTTP.
In fact I think we do use the term "self-host" in exactly that way when talking about "self-hosted newsletters." I can (and do!) run a newsletter where I generate the HTML and the MIME document locally, find an SMTP provider of my choice, and instruct it to directly mail recipients. I maintain the mailing list (in a text file in a Git repo) and pass it to my SMTP provider every time I do a mailing, and people contact me directly to sign up. I could also use Substack/Tinyletter/Buttondown/etc., which would have various advantages and disadvantages; the hosting provider would handle most of this for me, including maintaining the list of subscribers. You can also talk about "self-hosted Mailman," etc. In these cases, the self-hoster sees the email addresses of subscribers but not (necessarily) their IP addresses.
I don't think I'm conflating TCP and HTTP. NNTP, UUCP, and SMTP all use TCP, but they're designed in a way that doesn't have this property. In fact it's not even HTTP per se that's a problem. It's mostly about what I called "direct HTTP" - though you posted your comment to me over HTTP, there's no HTTP (nor TCP) connection to me.
(Also other comments claim that the CLOUD Act means that if GH the US entity runs EU servers, that doesn't actually solve the problem - it'd have to be a non-US entity not subject to US jurisdiction. That's why I think the old-school-web model of mirrors is a better example; they're generally run by universities or other entities with no legal relation to the site they're mirroring.)