If it will spare us a long and unproductive debate can we just stipulate that I'm speaking positively and not normatively? Whatever your philosophical leanings might be, intent is basically the fulcrum for most of US criminal law as it exists in the real world.
As a result, we don't have to reach far to see how inducing a seizure over the Internet could result in criminal liability. It isn't a stretch. The laws we had 40 years ago adequately capture the event.
In a sense that's following my point - describing the executable semantics of the legal system, sure. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a purely positive statement, as simply explaining how something works also promulgates it. This is a basic tenet of how the legal system bootstraps its own justification - notice, publication, etc.
We can argue about it or not, but normatively I know that I would indeed like some sort of purely-executable-semantics environment, as the Internet was originally perceived as. Twitster's walled garden likely isn't a workable place to push for this for (being a mass-marketed proprietary service that merely delivers over the Internet). But as I don't see a boundary for where the legal system will ever stop attempting to apply its ambient authority, it is worthwhile to point out that there are alternative philosophies at every one of these occurrences.
As a result, we don't have to reach far to see how inducing a seizure over the Internet could result in criminal liability. It isn't a stretch. The laws we had 40 years ago adequately capture the event.