I do believe that Barlow's statement still holds some weight today and that states "are not welcome" in cyberspace [1]. In cyberspace, it is companies that jealously guard their jurisdiction and sovereignty as they battle for market share, user retention, all the while collecting massive troves of data from their user base which they jealously guard and monetize through selling advertising space. While online, we identify as users of Google or Facebook and not through our nationality. We authenticate to third party websites using the "Sign in with Google/Facebook" button instead of our passports or national ID cards.
That said, governments have attempted to stop the forum shopping through legislation with extraterritorial effects [2]. Brenner and Koops also argue that the "reasonable standard" where states have to establish that are "sufficiently close" to exercise their jurisdictional rights can be challenging to overcome [3]. On the flip side, sometimes states might assume that another state is more closely associated or impacted and choose not to take action, leading to a stalemate [4].
Also, I believe that "double criminality" plays a large factor as well, if the act is illegal in both jurisdictions [5], then local police should be more than happy to cooperate with foreign police's access of material as it would potentially lead to conviction of a criminal, which is in both state's best interest.
However, if the crime is one of free speech vs lese majeste or hate speech, then it may be more controversial and states may protest against foreign access of such material. Wipas Raksakulthai, a Thai citizen, allegedly committed such an offence through a Facebook post [6]. Firstly, it is difficult for a state to establish if that Facebook post resided on a server in Thailand or overseas. Secondly, since the defendant is a Thai citizen, there would also be less incentive for foreign states to intervene on his behalf. Hence, the only response he got was Amnesty International declaring that he is a "prisoner of conscience".
Since few states have lese majeste or hate speech laws, and it is difficult for states to establish which country the offending content resides in, and it is also rare for a foreigner to be charged under such laws, it is no surprise that there are very few or even no examples of states protesting foreign police access to materials in their country.
[1] Barlow, J P 'A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace' https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence accessed 9 March 2025
[2] Brenner SW and Koops B-J, ‘Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction.(Report)’ (2004) 4 The Journal of High Technology Law 1, pp. 11
[3] ibid, pp. 5
[4] ibid
[5] ibid, pp. 7
[6] Belinsky, Mark 'This Can Get Mark Zuckerberg Arrested' https://www.huffpost.com/entry/this-can-get-mark-zuckerb_b_1066634 accessed 9 March 2025