Say you're at a firm networking event and someone asks you what kind of law you want to do. You respond "internet law." The question is whether you've just given a dumb answer or not. What you've described sounds a lot like "international law." Obviously there are extensions of real practice areas that involve international issues, but it's still meaningless to say that's what you want to do. It's too nonspecific.
No one suggested that someone say, "Nice to meet you, so-and-so. I practice Internet law, hurr durr." We're talking about a particular person's interests here and casually discussing things in a 0L thread. However, I don't see how someone can realistically believe that Internet-focused law won't be growing and establishing itself over the next three to 10 years, though "technology law" may be the preferred nomenclature. I've read that BigLaw is often behind the curve on trends, but there are firms who are actively pursuing Internet law. The article I linked above mentions that Paul Hastings has an industry law subdivision called "The Internet of Things"; there's a technology/telecom/media subdivision as well. Dentons is a big firm that has an expressed interest in technology law. I think it's obvious that Internet/tech law can be an (unofficial or official) subset of many types of law including international law, finance law, corporate law, commercial law, contract law, communications law, etc. The tech aspect is germane and not "nonspecific"; if anything, it's highly specific as it may be a form of specialization with distinct considerations.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you're contesting this so much. Tech law exists.