Perhaps the {'Internet} example wasn't appropriate, because the {'Internet} more or less tends to be considered as a "place", so let me write another example.

Suppose I want to express "molor sits on his pride". I can't write {le'yo'DajDaq ba' molor} because {le'yo'} can't take the {-Daq}.

But if I write:

{le'yo' quS'a'Daq ba' molor}

molor sits on his throne of pride

Would it be correct ?

If Molor sits on his pride is somehow established as a metaphor before that sentence appears, then you can say le'yo'DajDaq ba' molor. But that's down to your ability to set me up to understand a metaphor, not whether the language allows non-literal entities to be locatives.

Anything you can ba' on is a locative. If I can ba' on le'yo' in some unusual expression, then that's a locative. When we tell people to use -Daq only on spatial relationships, we're warning them not to use it for other relationships expressed by English on, at, or in, not that metaphors can't express spatial relationships. If a beginner wants to translate I ate lunch at noon, we might have to warn them that DungluQDaq is the wrong concept.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name