The Post-American Internet

2026-01-065:20577456pluralistic.net

Today's links The Post-American Internet (permalink) On December 28th, I delivered a speech entitled "


Today's links


The Earth from space. Squatting over North America, casting a long shadow and ringed by a red, spiky halo, is the poop emoji from the cover of the US edition of 'Enshittification,' with a grawlix-scrawled black bar over its mouth, wearing a Trump wig. Leaching through the starscape is a 'code waterfall' effect as seen in the credits of the Wachowskis' 'Matrix' movies.

The Post-American Internet (permalink)

On December 28th, I delivered a speech entitled "A post-American, enshittification-resistant internet" for 39C3, the 39th Chaos Communications Congress in Hamburg, Germany. This is the transcript of that speech.

Many of you know that I'm an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation – EFF. I'm about to start my 25th year there. I know that I'm hardly unbiased, but as far as I'm concerned, there's no group anywhere on Earth that does the work of defending our digital rights better than EFF.

I'm an activist there, and for the past quarter-century, I've been embroiled in something I call "The War on General Purpose Computing."

If you were at 28C3, 14 years ago, you may have heard me give a talk with that title. Those are the trenches I've been in since my very first day on the job at EFF, when I flew to Los Angeles to crash the inaugural meeting of something called the "Broadcast Protection Discussion Group," an unholy alliance of tech companies, media companies, broadcasters and cable operators.

They'd gathered because this lavishly corrupt American congressman, Billy Tauzin, had promised them a new regulation – a rule banning the manufacture and sale of digital computers, unless they had been backdoored to specifications set by that group, specifications for technical measures to block computers from performing operations that were dispreferred by these companies' shareholders.

That rule was called "the Broadcast Flag," and it actually passed through the American telecoms regulator, the Federal Communications Commission. So we sued the FCC in federal court, and overturned the rule.

We won that skirmish, but friends, I have bad news, news that will not surprise you. Despite wins like that one, we have been losing the war on the general purpose computer for the past 25 years.

Which is why I've come to Hamburg today. Because, after decades of throwing myself against a locked door, the door that leads to a new, good internet, one that delivers both the technological self-determination of the old, good internet, and the ease of use of Web 2.0 that let our normie friends join the party, that door has been unlocked.

Today, it is open a crack. It's open a crack!

And here's the weirdest part: Donald Trump is the guy who's unlocked that door.

Oh, he didn't do it on purpose! But, thanks to Trump's incontinent belligerence, we are on the cusp of a "Post-American Internet," a new digital nervous system for the 21st century. An internet that we can build without worrying about America's demands and priorities.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about Trump or his policies. But as my friend Joey DaVilla likes to say "When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla." The only thing worse than experiencing all the terror that Trump has unleashed on America and the world would be going through all that and not salvaging anything out of the wreckage.

That's what I want to talk to you about today: the post-American Internet we can wrest from Trump's chaos.

A post-American Internet that is possible because Trump has mobilized new coalition partners to join the fight on our side. In politics, coalitions are everything. Any time you see a group of people suddenly succeeding at a goal they have been failing to achieve, it's a sure bet that they've found some coalition partners, new allies who don't want all the same thing as the original forces, but want enough of the same things to fight on their side.

That's where Trump came from: a coalition of billionaires, white nationalists, Christian bigots, authoritarians, conspiratorialists, imperialists, and self-described "libertarians" who've got such a scorching case of low-tax brain worms that they'd vote for Mussolini if he'd promise to lower their taxes by a nickel.

And what's got me so excited is that we've got a new coalition in the War on General Purpose Computers: a coalition that includes the digital rights activists who've been on the lines for decades, but also people who want to turn America's Big Tech trillions into billions for their own economy, and national security hawks who are quite rightly worried about digital sovereignty.

My thesis here is that this is an unstoppable coalition. Which is good news! For the first time in decades, victory is in our grasp.

#

So let me explain: 14 years ago, I stood in front of this group and explained the "War on General Purpose Computing." That was my snappy name for this fight, but the boring name that they use in legislatures for it is "anticircumvention,"

Under anticircumvention law, it's a crime to alter the functioning of a digital product or service, unless the manufacturer approves of your modification, and – crucially – this is true whether or not your modification violates any other law.

Anticircumvention law originates in the USA: Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 establishes a felony punishable by a five year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine for a first offense for bypassing an "access control" for a copyrighted work.

So practically speaking, if you design a device or service with even the flimsiest of systems to prevent modification of its application code or firmware, it's a felony – a jailable felony – to modify that code or firmware. It's also a felony to disclose information about how to bypass that access control, which means that pen-testers who even describe how they access a device or system face criminal liability.

Under anticircumvention law any manufacturer can trivially turn their product into a no-go zone, criminalizing the act of investigating its defects, criminalizing the act of reporting on its defects, and criminalizing the act of remediating its defects.

This is a law that Jay Freeman rightly calls "Felony Contempt of Business Model." Anticircumvention became the law of the land in 1998 when Bill Clinton signed the DMCA. But before you start snickering at those stupid Americans, know this: every other country in the world has passed a law just like this in the years since. Here in the EU, it came in through Article 6 of the 2001 EU Copyright Directive.

Now, it makes a certain twisted sense for the US to enact a law like this, after all, they are the world's tech powerhouse, home to the biggest, most powerful tech companies in the world. By making it illegal to modify digital products without the manufacturer's permission, America enhances the rent-extracting power of the most valuable companies on US stock exchanges.

But why would Europe pass a law like this? Europe is a massive tech importer. By extending legal protection to tech companies that want to steal their users' data and money, the EU was facilitating a one-way transfer of value from Europe to America. So why would Europe do this?

Well, let me tell you about the circumstances under which other countries came to enact their anticircumvention laws and maybe you'll spot a pattern that will answer this question.

Australia got its anticircumvention law through the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which obliges Australia to enact anticircumvention law.

Canada and Mexico got it through the US-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which obliges Canada and Mexico to enact anticircumvention laws.

Andean nations like Chile got their anticircumvention laws through bilateral US free trade agreements, which oblige them to enact anticircumvention laws.

And the Central American nations got their anticircumvention laws through CAFTA – The Central American Free Trade Agreement with the USA – which obliges them to enact anticircumvention laws, too.

I assume you've spotted the pattern by now: the US trade representative has forced every one of its trading partners to adopt anticircumvention law, to facilitate the extraction of their own people's data and money by American firms. But of course, that only raises a further question: Why would every other country in the world agree to let America steal its own people's money and data, and block its domestic tech sector from making interoperable products that would prevent this theft?

Here's an anecdote that unravels this riddle: many years ago, in the years before Viktor Orban rose to power, I used to guest-lecture at a summer PhD program in political science at Budapest's Central European University. And one summer, after I'd lectured to my students about anticircumvention law, one of them approached me.

They had been the information minister of a Central American nation during the CAFTA negotiations, and one day, they'd received a phone-call from their trade negotiator, calling from the CAFTA bargaining table. The negotiator said, "You know how you told me not to give the Americans anticircumvention under any circumstances? Well, they're saying that they won't take our coffee unless we give them anticircumvention. And I'm sorry, but we just can't lose the US coffee market. Our economy would collapse. So we're going to give them anticircumvention. I'm really sorry."

That's it. That's why every government in the world allowed US Big Tech companies to declare open season on their people's private data and ready cash.

The alternative was tariffs. Well, I don't know if you've heard, but we've got tariffs now!

I mean, if someone threatens to burn your house down unless you follow their orders, and then they burn your house down anyway, you don't have to keep following their orders. So…Happy Liberation Day?

So far, every country in the world has had one of two responses to the Trump tariffs. The first one is: "Give Trump everything he asks for (except Greenland) and hope he stops being mad at you." This has been an absolute failure. Give Trump an inch, he'll take a mile. He'll take fucking Greenland. Capitulation is a failure.

But so is the other tactic: retaliatory tariffs. That's what we've done in Canada (like all the best Americans, I'm Canadian). Our top move has been to levy tariffs on the stuff we import from America, making the things we buy more expensive. That's a weird way to punish America! It's like punching yourself in the face as hard as you can, and hoping the downstairs neighbor says "Ouch!"

And it's indiscriminate. Why whack some poor farmer from a state that begins and ends with a vowel with tariffs on his soybeans. That guy never did anything bad to Canada.

But there's a third possible response to tariffs, one that's just sitting there, begging to be tried: what about repealing anticircumvention law?

If you're a technologist or an investor based in a country that's repealed its anticircumvention law, you can go into business making disenshittificatory products that plug into America's defective tech exports, allowing the people who own and use those products to use them in ways that are good for them, even if those uses make the company's shareholders mad.

Think of John Deere tractors: when a farmer's John Deere tractor breaks down, they are expected to repair it, swapping in new parts and assemblies to replace whatever's malfing. But the tractor won't recognize that new part and will not start working again, not until the farmer spends a couple hundred bucks on a service callout from an official John Deere tractor repair rep, whose only job is to type an unlock code into the tractor's console, to initialize the part and pair it with the tractor's main computing unit.

Modding a tractor to bypass this activation step violates anticircumvention law, meaning farmers all over the world are stuck with this ripoff garbage, because their own government will lock up anyone who makes a tractor mod that disables the parts-pairing check in this American product.

So what if Canada repealed Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act of 2012 (that's our anticircumvention law)? Well, then a company like Honeybee, which makes tractor front-ends and attachments, could hire some smart University of Waterloo computer science grads, and put 'em to work jailbreaking the John Deere tractor's firmware, and offer it to everyone in the world. They could sell the crack to anyone with an internet connection and a payment method, including that poor American farmer whose soybeans we're currently tariffing.

It's hard to convey how much money is on the table here. Take just one example: Apple's App Store. Apple forces all app vendors into using its payment processor, and charges them a 30 percent commission on every euro spent inside of an app.

30 percent! That's such a profitable business that Apple makes $100 billion per year on it. If the EU repeals Article 6 of the Copyright Directive, some smart geeks in Finland could reverse-engineer Apple's bootloaders and make a hardware dongle that jailbreaks phones so that they can use alternative app stores, and sell the dongle – along with the infrastructure to operate an app store – to anyone in the world who wants to go into business competing with Apple for users and app vendors.

Those competitors could offer a 90% discount to every crafter on Etsy, every performer on Patreon, every online news outlet, every game dev, every media store. Offer them a 90% discount on payments, and still make $10b/year.

Maybe Finland will never see another Nokia, but Nokia's a tough business to be in. You've got to make hardware, which is expensive and risky. But if the EU legalizes jailbreaking, then Apple would have to incur all the expense and risk of making and fielding hardware, while those Finnish geeks could cream off the $100b Apple sucks out of the global economy in an act of a disgusting, rip-off rent-seeking.

As Jeff Bezos said to the publishers: "Your margin is my opportunity." With these guys, it's always "disruption for thee, but not for me." When they do it to us, that's progress. When we do it to them, it's piracy, and every pirate wants to be an admiral.

Well, screw that. Move fast and break Tim Cook's things. Move fast and break kings!

It's funny: I spent 25 years getting my ass kicked by the US Trade Representative (in my defense, it wasn't a fair fight). I developed a kind of grudging admiration for the skill with which the USTR bound the entire world to a system of trade that conferred parochial advantages to America and its tech firms, giving them free rein to loot the world's data and economies. So it's been pretty amazing to watch Trump swiftly and decisively dismantle the global system of trade and destroy the case for the world continuing to arrange its affairs to protect the interests of America's capital class.

I mean, it's not a path I would have chosen. I'd have preferred no Trump at all to this breakthrough. But I'll take this massive own-goal if Trump insists. I mean, I'm not saying I've become an accelerationist, but at this point, I'm not exactly not an accelerationist.

Now, you might have heard that governments around the world have been trying to get Apple to open its App Store, and they've totally failed at this. When the EU hit Apple with an enforcement order under the Digital Markets Act, Apple responded by offering to allow third party app stores, but it would only allow those stores to sell apps that Apple had approved of.

And while those stores could use their own payment processors, Apple would charge them so much in junk fees that it would be more expensive to process a payment using your own system, and if Apple believed that a user's phone had been outside of the EU for 21 days, they'd remotely delete all that user's data and apps.

When the EU explained that this would not satisfy the regulation, Apple threatened to pull out of the EU. Then, once everyone had finished laughing, Apple filed more than a dozen bullshit objections to the order hoping to tie this up in court for a decade, the way Google and Meta did for the GDPR.

It's not clear that the EU can force Apple to write code that opens up the iOS platform for alternative app stores and payment methods, but there is one thing that the EU can absolutely do with 100% reliability, any time they want: the EU can decide not to let Apple use Europe's courts to shut down European companies that defend European merchants, performers, makers, news outlets, game devs and creative workers, from Apple's ripoff, by jailbreaking phones.

All the EU has to do is repeal Article 6 of the Copyright Directive, and, in so doing, strip Apple of the privilege of mobilizing the European justice system to shore up Apple's hundred billion dollar annual tax on the world's digital economy. The EU company that figures out how to reliably jailbreak iPhones will have customers all over the world, including in the USA, where Apple doesn't just use its veto over which apps you can run on your phone to suck 30% out of every dollar you spend, but where Apple also uses its control over the platform to strip out apps that protect Apple's customers from Trump's fascist takeover.

Back in October, Apple kicked the "ICE Block" app out of the App Store. That's an app that warns the user if there's a snatch squad of masked ICE thugs nearby looking to grab you off the street and send you to an offshore gulag. Apple internally classified ICE kidnappers as a "protected class," and then declared the ICE Block infringed on the rights of these poor, beset ICE goons.

And speaking of ICE thugs, there are plenty of qualified technologists who have fled the US this year, one step ahead of an ICE platoon looking to put them and their children into a camp. Those skilled hackers are now living all over the world, joined by investors who'd like to back a business whose success will be determined by how awesome its products are, and not how many $TRUMP coins they buy.

Apple's margin could be their opportunity.

Legalizing jailbreaking, raiding the highest margin lines of business of the most profitable companies in America is a much better response to the Trump tariffs than retaliatory tariffs.

For one thing, this is a targeted response: go after Big Tech's margins and you're mounting a frontal assault on the businesses whose CEOs each paid a million bucks to sit behind Trump on the inauguration dais.

Raiding Big Tech's margins is not an attack on the American people, nor on the small American businesses that are ripped off by Big Tech. It's a raid on the companies that screw everyday Americans and everyone else in the world. It's a way to make everyone in the world richer at the expense of these ripoff companies.

It beats the shit out of blowing hundreds of billions of dollars building AI data-centers in the hopes that someday, a sector that's lost nearly a trillion dollars shipping defective chatbots will figure out a use for GPUs that doesn't start hemorrhaging money the minute they plug them in.

So here are our new allies in the war on general-purpose computation: businesses and technologists who want to make billions of dollars raiding Big Tech's margins, and policymakers who want their country to be the disenshittification nation – the country that doesn't merely protect its people's money and privacy by buying jailbreaks from other countries, but rather, the country that makes billions of dollars selling that privacy and pocketbook-defending tech to the rest of the world.

That's a powerful alliance, but those are not the only allies Trump has pushed into our camp. There's another powerful ally waiting in the wings.

Remember last June, when the International Criminal Court in the Hague issued an arrest warrant for the génocidaire Benjamin Netanyahu, and Trump denounced the ICC, and then the ICC lost its Outlook access, its email archives, its working files, its address books, its calendars?

Microsoft says they didn't brick the ICC – that it's a coincidence. But when it comes to a he-said/Clippy-said between the justices of the ICC and the convicted monopolists of Microsoft, I know who I believe.

This is exactly the kind of infrastructural risk that we were warned of if we let Chinese companies like Huawei supply our critical telecoms equipment. Virtually every government ministry, every major corporation, every small business and every household in the world have locked themselves into a US-based, cloud-based service.

The handful of US Big Tech companies that supply the world's administrative tools are all vulnerable to pressure from the Trump admin, and that means that Trump can brick an entire nation.

The attack on the ICC was an act of cyberwarfare, like the Russian hackers who shut down Ukrainian power-generation facilities, except that Microsoft doesn't have to hack Outlook to brick the ICC – they own Outlook.

Under the US CLOUD Act of 2018, the US government can compel any US-based company to disclose any of its users' data – including foreign governments – and this is true no matter where that data is stored. Last July, Anton Carniaux, Director of Public and Legal Affairs at Microsoft France, told a French government inquiry that he "couldn't guarantee" that Microsoft wouldn't hand sensitive French data over to the US government, even if that data was stored in a European data-center.

And under the CLOUD Act, the US government can slap gag orders on the companies that it forces to cough up that data, so there'd be no way to even know if this happened, or whether it's already happened.

It doesn't stop at administrative tools, either: remember back in 2022, when Putin's thugs looted millions of dollars' worth of John Deere tractors from Ukraine and those tractors showed up in Chechnya? The John Deere company pushed an over-the-air kill signal to those tractors and bricked 'em.

John Deere is every bit as politically vulnerable to the Trump admin as Microsoft is, and they can brick most of the tractors in the world, and the tractors they can't brick are probably made by Massey Ferguson, the number-two company in the ag-tech cartel, which is also an American company and just as vulnerable to political attacks from the US government.

Now, none of this will be news to global leaders. Even before Trump and Microsoft bricked the ICC they were trying to figure out a path to "digital sovereignty." But the Trump administration's outrageous conduct and rhetoric over past 11 months has turned "digital sovereignty" from a nice-to-have into a must-have.

So finally, we're seeing some movement, like "Eurostack," a project to clone the functionality of US Big Tech silos in free/open source software, and to build EU-based data-centers that this code can run on.

But Eurostack is heading for a crisis. It's great to build open, locally hosted, auditable, trustworthy services that replicate the useful features of Big Tech, but you also need to build the adversarial interoperability tools that allow for mass exporting of millions of documents, the sensitive data-structures and edit histories.

We need scrapers and headless browsers to accomplish the adversarial interoperability that will guarantee ongoing connectivity to institutions that are still hosted on US cloud-based services, because US companies are not going to facilitate the mass exodus of international customers from their platform.

Just think of how Apple responded to the relatively minor demand to open up the iOS App Store, and now imagine the thermonuclear foot-dragging, tantrum-throwing and malicious compliance they'll come up with when faced with the departure of a plurality of the businesses and governments in a 27-nation bloc of 500,000,000 affluent consumers.

Any serious attempt at digital sovereignty needs migration tools that work without the cooperation of the Big Tech companies. Otherwise, this is like building housing for East Germans and locating it in West Berlin. It doesn't matter how great the housing is, your intended audience is going to really struggle to move in unless you tear down the wall.

Step one of tearing down that wall is killing anticircumvention law, so that we can run virtual devices that can be scripted, break bootloaders to swap out firmware and generally seize the means of computation.

So this is the third bloc in the disenshittification army: not just digital rights hippies like me; not just entrepreneurs and economic development wonks rubbing their hands together at the thought of transforming American trillions into European billions; but also the national security hawks who are 100% justified in their extreme concern about their country's reliance on American platforms that have been shown to be totally unreliable.

This is how we'll get a post-American internet: with an unstoppable coalition of activists, entrepreneurs and natsec hawks.

This has been a long time coming. Since the post-war settlement, the world has treated the US as a neutral platform, a trustworthy and stable maintainer of critical systems for global interchange, what the political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman call the "Underground Empire." But over the past 15 years, the US has systematically shattered global trust in its institutions, a process that only accelerated under Trump.

Take transoceanic fiber optic cables: the way the transoceanic fiber routes were planned, the majority of these cables make landfall on the coasts of the USA where the interconnections are handled. There's a good case for this hub-and-spoke network topology, especially compared to establishing direct links between every country. That's an Order(N^2) problem: directly linking each of the planet Earth's 205 countries to every other country would require 20,910 fiber links.

But putting all the world's telecoms eggs in America's basket only works if the US doesn't take advantage of its centrality, and while many people worried about what the US could do with the head-ends of the world's global fiber infra, it wasn't until Mark Klein's 2006 revelations about the NSA's nation-scale fiber optic taps in AT&T's network, and Ed Snowden's 2013 documents showing the global scale of this wiretapping, that the world had to confront the undeniable reality that the US could not be trusted to serve as the world's fiber hub.

It's not just fiber. The world does business in dollars. Most countries maintain dollar accounts at the Fed in New York as their major source of foreign reserves. But in 2005, American vulture capitalists bought up billions of dollars worth of Argentinian government bonds after the sovereign nation of Argentina had declared bankruptcy.

They convinced a judge in New York to turn over the government of Argentina's US assets to them to make good on loans that these debt collectors had not issued, but had bought up at pennies on the dollar. At that moment, every government in the world had to confront the reality that they could not trust the US Federal Reserve with their foreign reserves. But what else could they use?

Without a clear answer, dollar dominance continued, but then, under Biden, Putin-aligned oligarchs and Russian firms lost access to the SWIFT system for dollar clearing. This is when goods – like oil – are priced in dollars, so that buyers only need to find someone who will trade their own currency for dollars, which they can then swap for any commodity in the world.

Again, there's a sound case for dollar clearing: it's just not practical to establish deep, liquid pairwise trading market for all of the world's nearly 200 currencies, it's another O(N^2) problem.

But it only works if the dollar is a neutral platform. Once the dollar becomes an instrument of US foreign policy – whether or not you agree with that policy – it's no longer a neutral platform, and the world goes looking for an alternative.

No one knows what that alternative's going to be, just as no one knows what configuration the world's fiber links will end up taking. There's kilometers of fiber being stretched across the ocean floor, and countries are trying out some pretty improbable gambits as dollar alternatives, like Ethiopia revaluing its sovereign debt in Chinese renminbi. Without a clear alternative to America's enshittified platforms, the post-American century is off to a rocky start.

But there's one post-American system that's easy to imagine. The project to rip out all the cloud connected, backdoored, untrustworthy black boxes that power our institutions, our medical implants, our vehicles and our tractors; and replace it with collectively maintained, open, free, trustworthy, auditable code.

This project is the only one that benefits from economies of scale, rather than being paralyzed by exponential crises of scale. That's because any open, free tool adopted by any public institution – like the Eurostack services – can be audited, localized, pen-tested, debugged and improved by institutions in every other country.

It's a commons, more like a science than a technology, in that it is universal and international and collaborative. We don't have dueling western and Chinese principles of structural engineering. Rather, we have universal principles for making sure buildings don't fall down, adapted to local circumstances.

We wouldn't tolerate secrecy in the calculations used to keep our buildings upright, and we shouldn't tolerate opacity in the software that keeps our tractors, hearing aids, ventilators, pacemakers, trains, games consoles, phones, CCTVs, door locks, and government ministries working.

The thing is, software is not an asset, it's a liability. The capabilities that running software delivers – automation, production, analysis and administration – those are assets. But the software itself? That's a liability. Brittle, fragile, forever breaking down as the software upstream of it, downstream of it, and adjacent to it is updated or swapped out, revealing defects and deficiencies in systems that may have performed well for years.

Shifting software to commons-based production is a way to reduce the liability that software imposes on its makers and users, balancing out that liability among many players.

Now, obviously, tech bosses are totally clueless when it comes to this. They really do think that software is an asset. That's why they're so fucking horny to have chatbots shit out software at superhuman speeds. That's why they think it's good that they've got a chatbot that "produces a thousand times more code than a human programmer."

Producing code that isn't designed for legibility and maintainability, that is optimized, rather, for speed of production, is a way to incur tech debt at scale.

This is a neat encapsulation of the whole AI story: the chatbot can't do your job, but an AI salesman can convince your boss to fire you and replace you with a chatbot that can't do your job.

Your boss is an easy mark for that chatbot hustler because your boss hates you. In their secret hearts, bosses understand that if they stopped coming to work, the business would run along just fine, but if the workers stopped showing up, the company would grind to a halt.

Bosses like to tell themselves that they're in the driver's seat, but really, they fear that they're strapped into the back seat playing with a Fisher Price steering wheel. For them, AI is a way to wire the toy steering wheel directly into the company's drive-train. It's the realization of the fantasy of a company without workers.

When I was walking the picket line in Hollywood during the writer's strike, a writer told me that you prompt an AI the same way a studio boss gives shitty notes to a writer's room: "Make me ET, but make it about a dog, and give it a love interest, and a car-chase in the third act."

Say that to a writer's room and they will call you a fucking idiot suit and tell you "Why don't you go back to your office and make a spreadsheet, you nitwit. The grownups here are writing a movie."

Meanwhile, if you give that prompt to a chatbot, it will cheerfully shit out a script exactly to spec. The fact that this script will be terrible and unusable is less important than the prospect of a working life in which no one calls you a fucking idiot suit.

AI dangles the promise of a writer's room without writers, a movie without actors, a hospital without nurses, a coding shop without coders.

When Mark Zuckerberg went on a podcast and announced that the average American had three friends, but wanted 15 friends, and that he could solve this by giving us chatbots instead of friends, we all dunked on him as an out-of-touch billionaire Martian who didn't understand the nature of friendship.

But the reality is that for Zuck, your friends are a problem. Your friends' interactions with you determine how much time you spend on his platforms, and thus how many revenue-generating ads he can show you.

Your friends stubbornly refuse to organize their relationship with you in a way that maximizes the return to his shareholders. So Zuck is over there in Menlo Park, furiously fantasizing about replacing your friends with chatbots, because that way, he can finally realize the dream of a social media service without any socializing.

Rich, powerful people are, at root, solipsists. The only way to amass a billion dollars is to inflict misery and privation on whole populations. The only way to look yourself in the mirror after you've done that, is to convince yourself that those people don't matter, that, in some important sense, they aren't real.

Think of Elon Musk calling everyone who disagrees with him an "NPC,” or all those "Effective Altruists," who claimed the moral high ground by claiming to care about 53 trillion imaginary artificial humans who will come into existence in 10,000 years at the expense of extending moral consideration to people alive today.

Or think of how Trump fired all the US government scientists, and then announced the "Genesis" program, declaring that the US would begin generating annual "moonshot"-scale breakthroughs, with a chatbot. It's science without scientists.

Chatbots can't really do science, but from Trump's perspective, they're still better than scientists, because a chatbot won't ever tell him not to stare at an eclipse, or not to inject bleach. A chatbot won't ever tell him that trans people exist, or that the climate emergency is real.

Powerful people are suckers for AI, because AI fuels the fantasy of a world without people: just a boss and a computer, and no ego-shattering confrontations with people who know how to do things telling you "no."

AI is a way to produce tech debt at scale, to replace skilled writers with defective spicy autocomplete systems, to lose money at a rate not seen in living memory.

Now, compare that with the project of building a post-American internet: a project to reduce tech debt, to unlock America's monopoly trillions and divide them among the world's entrepreneurs (for whom they represent untold profits), and the world's technology users (for whom they represent untold savings); all while building resiliency and sovereignty.

Now, some of you are probably feeling pretty cynical about this right now. After all, your political leaders have demonstrated decades of ineffectual and incompetent deference to the US, and an inability to act, even when the need was dire. If your leaders couldn't act decisively on the climate emergency, what hope do we have of them taking this moment seriously?

But crises precipitate change. Remember when another mad emperor – Vladimir Putin – invaded Ukraine, and Europe experienced a dire energy shortage? In three short years, the continent's solar uptake skyrocketed. The EU went from being 15 years behind in its energy transition, to ten years ahead of schedule.

Because when you're shivering in the dark, a lot of fights you didn't think were worth it are suddenly existential battles you can't afford to lose. Sure, no one wants to argue with a tedious neighbor who has an aesthetic temper tantrum at the thought of a solar panel hanging from their neighbor's balcony.

But when it's winter, and there's no Russian gas, and you're shivering in the dark, then that person can take their aesthetic objection to balcony solar, fold it until it's all corners, and shove it right up their ass.

Besides, we don't need Europe to lead the charge on a post-American internet by repealing anticircumvention. Any country could do it! And the country that gets there first gets to reap the profits from supplying jailbreaking tools to the rest of the world, it gets to be the Disenshittification Nation, and everyone else in the world gets to buy those tools and defend themselves from US tech companies' monetary and privacy plunder.

Just one country has to break the consensus, and the case for every country doing so is the strongest it's ever been. It used to be that countries that depended on USAID had to worry about losing food, medical and cash supports if they pissed off America. But Trump killed USAID, so now that's a dead letter.

Meanwhile, America's status as the planet's most voracious consumer has been gutted by decades of anti-worker, pro-billionaire policies. Today, the US is in the grips of its third consecutive "K-shaped" recovery, that's an economic rally where the rich get richer, and everyone else gets poorer. For a generation, America papered over that growing inequality with easy credit, with everyday Americans funding their consumption with credit cards and second and third mortgages.

So long as they could all afford to keep buying, other countries had to care about America as an export market. But a generation of extraction has left the bottom 90% of Americans struggling to buy groceries and other necessities, carrying crushing debt from skyrocketing shelter, education and medical expenses that they can't hope to pay down, thanks to 50 years of wage stagnation.

The Trump administration has sided firmly with debt collectors, price gougers, and rent extractors. Trump neutered enforcement against rent-fixing platforms like Realpage, restarted debt payments for eight million student borrowers, and killed a plan to make live-saving drugs a little cheaper, leaving Americans to continue to pay the highest drug prices in the world.

Every dollar spent servicing a loan is a dollar that can't go to consumption. And as more and more Americans slip into poverty, the US is gutting programs that spend money on the public's behalf, like SNAP, the food stamps program that helps an ever-larger slice of the American public stave off hunger.

America is chasing the "world without people" dream, where working people have nothing, spend nothing, and turn every penny over to rentiers who promptly flush that money into the stock market, shitcoins, or gambling sites. But I repeat myself.

Even the US military – long a sacrosanct institution – is being kneecapped to enrich rent-seekers. Congress just killed a military "right to repair" law. So now, US soldiers stationed abroad will have to continue the Pentagon's proud tradition of shipping materiel from generators to jeeps back to America to be fixed by their manufacturers at a 10,000% markup, because the Pentagon routinely signs maintenance contracts that prohibit it from teaching a Marine how to fix an engine.

The post-American world is really coming on fast. As we repeal our anticircumvention laws, we don't have to care what America thinks, we don't have to care about their tariffs, because they're already whacking us with tariffs; and because the only people left in the US who can afford to buy things are rich people, who just don't buy enough stuff. There's only so many Lambos and Sub-Zeros even the most guillotineable plute can usefully own.

But what if European firms want to go on taking advantage of anticircumvention laws? Well, there's good news there, too. "Good news," because the EU firms that rely on anticircumvention are engaged in the sleaziest, most disgusting frauds imaginable.

Anticircumvention law is the reason that Volkswagen could get away with Dieselgate. By imposing legal liability on reverse-engineers who might have discovered this lethal crime, Article 6 of the Copyright Directive created a chilling effect, and thousands of Europeans died, every year.

Today, Germany's storied automakers are carrying on the tradition of Dieselgate, sabotaging their cars to extract rent from drivers. From Mercedes, which rents you the accelerator pedal in your luxury car, only unlocking the full acceleration curve of your engine if you buy a monthly subscription; to BMW, which rents you the automated system that automatically dims your high-beams if there's oncoming traffic.

Legalize jailbreaking and any mechanic in Europe could unlock those subscription features for one price, and not share any of that money with BMW and Mercedes.

Then there's Medtronic, a company that pretends it is Irish. Medtronic is the world's largest med-tech company, having purchased all their competitors, and then undertaken the largest "tax-inversion" in history, selling themselves to a tiny Irish firm, in order to magick their profits into a state of untaxable grace, floating in the Irish Sea.

Medtronic supplies the world's most widely used ventilators, and it booby-traps them the same way John Deere booby-traps its tractors. After a hospital technician puts a new part in a Medtronic ventilator, the ventilator's central computing unit refuses to recognize the part until it completes a cryptographic handshake, proving that an authorized Medtronic technician was paid hundreds of euros to certify a repair that the hospital's own technician probably performed.

It's just a way to suck hundreds of euros out of hospitals every time a ventilator breaks. This would be bad enough, but during the covid lockdowns, when every ventilator was desperately needed, and when the planes stopped flying, there was no way for a Medtronic tech to come and bless the hospital technicians' repairs. This was lethal. It killed people.

There's one more European company that relies on anticircumvention that I want to discuss here, because they're old friends of CCC: that's the Polish train company Newag. Newag sabotages its own locomotives, booby-trapping them so that if they sense they have been taken to a rival's service yard, the train bricks itself. When the train operator calls Newag about this mysterious problem, the company "helpfully" remotes into the locomotive's computers, to perform "diagnostics," which is just sending a unbricking command to the vehicle, a service for which they charge 20,000 euros.

Last year, Polish hackers from the security research firm Dragon Sector presented on their research into this disgusting racket in this very hall, and now, they're being sued by Newag under anticircumvention law, for making absolutely true disclosures about Newag's deliberately defective products.

So these are the European stakeholders for anticircumvention law: the Dieselgate killers, the car companies who want to rent you your high-beams and accelerator, the med-tech giant that bricked all the ventilators during the pandemic, and the company that tied Poland to the train-tracks.

I relish the opportunity to fight these bastards in Brussels, as they show up and cry "Won't someone think of the train saboteurs?"

The enshittification of technology – the decay of the platforms and systems we rely on – has many causes: the collapse of competition, regulatory capture, the smashing of tech workers' power. But most of all, enshittification is the result of anticircumvention law's ban on interoperability.

By blocking interop, by declaring war on the general-purpose computer, our policy-makers created an enshittogenic environment that rewarded companies for being shitty, and ushered in the enshittocene, in which everything is turning to shit.

Let's call time on enshittification. Let's seize the means of computation. Let's build the drop-in, free, open, auditable alternatives to the services and firmware we rely on.

Let's end the era of silos. I mean, isn't it fucking weird how you have to care which network someone is using if you want to talk to them? Instead of just deciding who you want to talk to?

The fact that you have to figure out whether the discussion you're trying to join is on Twitter or Bluesky, Mastodon or Instagram – that is just the most Prodigy/AOL/Compuserve-ass way of running a digital world. I mean, 1990 called and they want their walled gardens back

Powerful allies are joining our side in the War on General Purpose Computation. It's not just people like us, who've been fighting for this whole goddamned century, but also countries that want to convert American tech's hoarded trillions into fuel for a single-use rocket that boosts their own tech sector into a stable orbit.

It's national security hawks who are worried about Trump bricking their ministries or their tractors, and who are also worried – with just cause – about Xi Jinping bricking all their solar inverters and batteries. Because, after all, the post-American internet is also a post-Chinese internet!

Nothing should be designed to be field updatable without the user's permission. Nothing critical should be a black box.

Like I said at the start of this talk, I have been doing this work for 24 years at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, throwing myself at a door that was double-locked and deadbolted, and now that door is open a crack and goddammit, I am hopeful.

Not optimistic. Fuck optimism! Optimism is the idea that things will get better no matter what we do. I know that what we do matters. Hope is the belief that if we can improve things, even in small ways, we can ascend the gradient toward the world we want, and attain higher vantage points from which new courses of action, invisible to us here at our lower elevation, will be revealed.

Hope is a discipline. It requires that you not give in to despair. So I'm here to tell you: don't despair.

All this decade, all over the world, countries have taken up arms against concentrated corporate power. We've had big, muscular antitrust attacks on big corporations in the US (under Trump I and Biden); in Canada; in the UK; in the EU and member states like Germany, France and Spain; in Australia; in Japan and South Korea and Singapore; in Brazil; and in China.

This is a near-miraculous turn of affairs. All over the world, governments are declaring war on monopolies, the source of billionaires' wealth and power.

Even the most forceful wind is invisible. We can only see it by its effects. What we're seeing here is that whenever a politician bent on curbing corporate power unfurls a sail, no matter where in the world that politician is, that sail fills with wind and propels the policy in ways that haven't been seen in generations.

The long becalming of the fight over corporate power has ended, and a fierce, unstoppable wind is blowing. It's not just blowing in Europe, or in Canada, or in South Korea, Japan, China, Australia or Brazil. It's blowing in America, too. Never forget that as screwed up and terrifying as things are in America, the country has experienced, and continues to experience, a tsunami of antitrust bills and enforcement actions at the local, state and federal level.

And never forget that the post-American internet will be good for Americans. Because, in a K-shaped, bifurcated, unequal America, the trillions that American companies loot from the world don't trickle down to Americans. The average American holds a portfolio of assets that rounds to zero, and that includes stock in US tech companies.

The average American isn't a shareholder in Big Tech, the average American is a victim of Big Tech. Liberating the world from US Big Tech is also liberating America from US Big Tech.

That's been EFF's mission for 35 years. It's been my mission at EFF for 25 years. If you want to get involved in this fight – and I hope you do – it can be your mission, too. You can join EFF, and you can join groups in your own country, like Netzpolitik here in Germany, or the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, or La Quadrature du Net in France, or the Open Rights Group in the UK, or EF Finland, or ISOC Bulgaria, XNet, DFRI, Quintessenz, Bits of Freedom, Openmedia, FSFE, or any of dozens of organizations around the world.

The door is open a crack, the wind is blowing, the post-American internet is upon us: a new, good internet that delivers all the technological self-determination of the old, good internet, and the ease of use of Web 2.0 so that our normie friends can use it, too.

And I can't wait for all of us to get to hang out there. It's gonna be great.

Hey look at this (permalink)


A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

Object permanence (permalink)

#20yrsago Online sf mag Infinite Matrix goes out with a bang – new Gibson, Rucker, Kelly https://web.archive.org/web/20060101120510/https://www.infinitematrix.net/

#20yrsago Wil McCarthy’s wonderful “Hacking Matter” as a free download https://web.archive.org/web/20060103052051/http://wilmccarthy.com/hm.htm

#15yrsago Papa Sangre: binaural video game with no video https://web.archive.org/web/20101224170833/http://www.papasangre.com/

#15yrsago DDoS versus human rights organizations https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2010/DDoS_Independent_Media_Human_Rights

#15yrsago Why I have a public email address https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/dec/21/keeping-email-address-secret-spambots

#15yrsago How the FCC failed the nation on Net Neutrality https://web.archive.org/web/20101224075655/https://www.salon.com/technology/network_neutrality/index.html?story=/tech/dan_gillmor/2010/12/21/fcc_network_neutrality

#15yrsago Bankster robberies: Bank of America and friends wrongfully foreclose on customers, steal all their belongings https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/business/22lockout.html?_r=1&hp

#10yrsago India’s deadly exam-rigging scandal: murder, corruption, suicide and scapegoats https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/the-mystery-of-indias-deadly-exam-scam

#10yrsago Copyright infringement “gang” raided by UK cops: 3 harmless middle-aged karaoke fans https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/uk-police-busts-karaoke-gang-for-sharing-songs-that-arent-commercially-available/

#10yrsago IETF approves HTTP error code 451 for Internet censorship https://web.archive.org/web/20151222155906/https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-http-451-error-code-for-censorship-is-now-an-internet-standard

#10yrsago Billionaire Sheldon Adelson secretly bought newspaper, ordered all hands to investigate judges he hated https://web.archive.org/web/20151220081546/http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/judge-adelson-lawsuit-subject-unusual-scrutiny-amid-review-journal-sale

#10yrsago Tax havens hold $7.6 trillion; 8% of world’s total wealth https://web.archive.org/web/20160103142942/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/parking-the-big-money/

#10yrsago Mansplaining Lolita https://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/

#10yrsago Lifelock admits it lied in its ads (again), agrees to $100M fine https://web.archive.org/web/20151218000258/https://consumerist.com/2015/12/17/identity-theft-company-lifelock-once-again-failed-to-actually-keep-identities-protected-must-pay-100m/

#10yrsago Uninsured driver plows through gamer’s living-room wall and creams him mid-Fallout 4 https://www.gofundme.com/f/helpforbenzo

#10yrsago Juniper Networks backdoor confirmed, password revealed, NSA suspected https://www.wired.com/2015/12/juniper-networks-hidden-backdoors-show-the-risk-of-government-backdoors/

#10yrsago A survivalist on why you shouldn’t bug out https://waldenlabs.com/10-reasons-not-to-bug-out/

#1yrago Nurses whose shitty boss is a shitty app https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/18/loose-flapping-ends/#luigi-has-a-point

#1yrago Proud to be a blockhead https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/21/blockheads-r-us/#vocational-awe

Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.


A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)


A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)


A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2026
  • "Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2026

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2026

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026


Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing:

  • "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux about being an effective AI critic. LEGAL REVIEW AND COPYEDIT COMPLETE.
  • "The Post-American Internet," a short book about internet policy in the age of Trumpism. PLANNING.

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING

This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.

How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://twitter.com/doctorow

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X


Read the original article

Comments

  • By Quothling 2026-01-067:1116 reply

    I've spent a couple of decades in the Danish public sector of digitalisation and in the private sector for global green energy. 10 years ago people would've laughed if you talked about leaving Microsoft and iOS in enterprise. Now we all have contingency plans for just that, and a lot of organisations are already actually doing it. So I would argue that there is more of a crack, but I'm not sure the post-american internet is going to be all that great. Because unlike the open source and decentralised platforms which are taking the place of US tech, the EU is going to regulate the internet. There is a saying about how us citizens trust companies but not their government, and how Europeans trust their governments but not their companies. Which obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but it's how you can view the EU. With one hand they do so much to protect consumer rights for us citizens, but with the other hand they build a survailance state.

    Of course that is how democracy works. You'll have multiple factions working toward their own goals with very different ideologies, and the EU has a lot of that. For the most part what comes out is great, because compromise is how you get things done when there aren't just two sides. For survailance, however, there are really just two sides and the wrong one of them is winning.

    • By hshdhdhj4444 2026-01-0611:136 reply

      The idea that EU surveillance is greater than US surveillance is almost certainly mistaken.

      In fact, a huge reason that the EU is looking to move away from U.S. commercial providers is that they can’t guarantee they won’t be giving the U.S. govt information about EU users even if they setup completely independent EU based entities.

      The reason why it might appear that the EU is more heavy handed is because the EU is actually passing limited tailored laws, publicly, that explicitly state the limitations of those laws.

      The US govt, on the other hand, has already passed broad blanket laws that allow them to get any data from any U.S. corporate entity with the flimsiest of warrants which those entities are not even legally allowed to publicly reveal.

      The U.S. govt doesn’t need to pass any surveillance laws because they already essentially have unlimited power over the data being collected by US corporations.

      • By great69 2026-01-0612:172 reply

        I just assume it doesn’t matter where you live or who you are- anyone can have your data. It’s not admitting defeat. It’s just being safe and sane.

        To the point of the post though, please note that saying the internet is American (it’s not, it’s global) or publically giving up on the U.S. because of POTUS, three letter agencies, attitudes, etc. is not helping you win the many Americans over that may join you in some cause.

        • By u_sama 2026-01-0612:303 reply

          My POV is Americans are not an ally in any case, and all efforts must be made to increase self-reliance and disentanglement from the US. Both parties of the US disrregard european interests.

          An argument can be made the Internet is actually Chinese because the atoms your bit relies on are mostly produced in China or Taiwan.

          • By techdmn 2026-01-0613:17

            Am American, can confirm. I largely disagree with the idea that U.S. citizens chose their government, there are many, many filters, restrictions and unnecessary complications specifically designed to prevent politics having too much influence on policy, and our militarized police force is only too happy to deal with any inconvenient protestors. (Not to mention literal military deployments to several of our cities.) On the other hand, I am routinely amazed at enthusiasm among the public for surveillance, such as the opinion that FLOCK cameras are justified because they might help catch people exceeding the speed limit. Never underestimate the average person's desire to monitor and control other people.

            Edit to clarify: I and many Americans are trying hard to be your allies, but it's not clear we have the leverage to be effective. Shit is locked down pretty tight over here.

          • By m3nat33 2026-01-0612:423 reply

            > My POV is Americans are not an ally in any case

            So you are an enemy of someone because of where they were born?

            • By atwrk 2026-01-0612:582 reply

              no it means u_sama has (correctly, IMO) observed that the US has made it very clear in the past year that they don't regard the EU as an ally. I mean the openly talk about annexing EU territory right now.

            • By Ygg2 2026-01-0613:07

              No, you become enemy if someone unlawfully, and uni-laterally annexes a part of your territory. For example see Ukraine.

            • By ted_bunny 2026-01-0613:251 reply

              I don't have any enmity against poisonous snakes.

          • By bigyabai 2026-01-0618:49

            Nevermind the supply chain issue, America apparently has extenuating issues booting China off their internal networks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon

        • By patcon 2026-01-0612:25

          I don't mean this flippantly, but it's an odd framing you present. As in, when you yourself comment on the internet, do you think about winning Somalis to your cause?

          I just mean... the point of marginalising reliance on USA and USA companies is that others don't need to care about winning American citizens to any cause they pursue, because American infrastructure has minimal [or no] power over their lives. As in, your response comes from the old world ppl are trying to leave behind, no?

      • By seec 2026-01-146:11

        The reason is money and control. That's it. Believing otherwise is foolish. They don't really give a shit about privacy or whatever is the supposed agenda of the day. It's about not paying as much to the US and being able to control the infrastruscture.

        I trust EU govs less than I trust US companies. At least I know that for the companies it's just about making more money and there isn't that many downsides for me outside of having to pay one way or another. EU govs are fundamentally destructive, so whatever they end up doing you can be sure it will terrible for everyone but themselves.

      • By throwawayqqq11 2026-01-0613:08

        ... and the reason why the US doesnt pass strong federal privacy laws is, the tech oligarchy has stronger lobbies or political ties in the US. It could be the other way around, if the US had a weaker tech sector and was leaking wealth/data to the EU, they could be protectionist. This is the common denominator. I disagree with your angle, that the EU is more corpo-sceptical, they are the same, just different lobbies.

      • By Quothling 2026-01-0613:162 reply

        > The idea that EU surveillance is greater than US surveillance is almost certainly mistaken.

        Well yes, but that doesn't mean we want EU surveillance to replace it.

        • By Fnoord 2026-01-0613:402 reply

          If my choice is an American company which does tracking, and a European company which does tracking, then I as European prefer the European one. Because they can be held accountable in a court of law. In Russia or China, that isn't the case. And it doesn't seem like it remains the case in USA. SCOTUS, for example, has been a political instrument for a long, long time.

          • By miroljub 2026-01-0613:513 reply

            As an European I'd be rather tracked by an American (out Chinese, Russian, ...) company than by an EU or European regimes.

            Those companies are less likely to imprison or censor me than the regime who rules over Europe.

          • By Reimersholme 2026-01-0613:57

            [dead]

        • By plastic-enjoyer 2026-01-0614:31

          > Well yes, but that doesn't mean we want EU surveillance to replace it.

          I agree, but what choice do we have? If we look at the way things are going, we see that the US is expanding its surveillance apparatus, China is expanding its surveillance apparatus, Russia is expanding its surveillance apparatus and the EU is following suit. Or at least is trying to, because previous attempts to implement surveillance policies have tended to reveal the incompetence of our representatives. Even leaving the EU is no guarantee that we will not become a surveillance state, as seen in the UK.

          The only way to circumvent surveillance is to create and use communication channels where the government nor companies have any influence.

      • By gradus_ad 2026-01-0612:211 reply

        Regulate (censor) =/= surveil

        • By Gormo 2026-01-0613:14

          Surveil ⊂ regulate.

      • By TylerLives 2026-01-0612:091 reply

        What about censorship?

        • By akie 2026-01-0612:173 reply

          What the US media (and Elon Musk) call EU censorship is actually a request to follow EU rules if they want to operate in the EU market. What, exactly, is controversial about that?

          • By petcat 2026-01-0612:231 reply

            Is this suggesting that China also does not require strict censorship / "follow the rules"?

          • By leishman 2026-01-0612:212 reply

            What’s controversial is that EU rules force censorship.

            • By twixfel 2026-01-0613:142 reply

              It's not that controversial, every single country has limits on speech, including the US. So European countries control a little bit more than the US, largely when it comes to racial abuse and other hate speech. So? The American model when combined with social media and the internet appears to have disastrous outcomes, judging by who has been elected there. It clearly worked in the past, but not any more.

              Americans supposedly being outraged at other free, democratic countries (often in reality both more free and democratic than the US) having different laws regarding speech is really just a smoke screen for what they really want: for their social media companies and billionaires to completely control our media, so that we end up just as fucked up and insane as they are. In the end if we allow Americans to poison our countries, we will lose our freedoms and democracies. Why would we allow that? What do you expect?

              P.S. it's cringe to cry about lack of free speech in Europe as if we've changed. We never, ever had 100% free speech in Europe. Stop trying to hark back to some free speech utopia that literally never existed. This is the continent that up until 110 years ago was overwhelmingly ruled by kings and queens and indeed we are in many ways far more conservative than you are. Get over it and stop trying to turn us into you.

            • By throwawayqqq11 2026-01-0613:18

              Ask Alex Jones about his free speech on Sandy Hook to understand how bad (EU) censorship really is!

              Jokes aside. Restriction of freedoms, including speech, is not bad by definition, it's the scale and intention behind it that matters but this aspect is always missing, kind of censored, in public debate. You may downvote me now :-)

              Edit: In the same sense, Alon does not cry about specific and obviously unjustified cases of EU censorship on X.

          • By miroljub 2026-01-0613:561 reply

            That's the definition of censorship.

    • By dotandgtfo 2026-01-069:091 reply

      There's a clear winner of surveillance in the set of the US government, US companies, and the EU government and EU companies.

      Not only is the EU miles behind the US, the US is accelerating faster towards more surveillance. Historically PRISM and the US Cloud act. More recently DOGE's recent actions in centralising data and a new crop of private enterprises working on surveillance tech like CCTV facial recognition.

      I don't see the federal government applying any breaks on this development. However, I note some states are. But we do see clear attempts from the EU attempt to attempt to curb this. E.g. parts of the AI Act.

      While I'm not enjoying the development certain factions are pushing through in the EU either, it is hyperbole to say that the EU is attempting to make a surveillance state, especially in this context.

      • By jonathanstrange 2026-01-0610:271 reply

        People also sometimes forget in this debate that the NSA is allowed and has a mandate to spy on non-US citizens and companies as they deem fit. Anything is allowed, including mass surveillance and hacking into systems. There are only restrictions when US citizens and companies are involved. European agencies probably have similar permissions but I don't think they have comparable capabilities and they also have and will continue to have smaller budgets.

        • By Fnoord 2026-01-0613:431 reply

          Do you really think if the NSA is not allowed to do something, that they'll be held accountable? In 2026? I doubt it very much so. The USA sits on a lot of data from EU, and that is a bad situation. We also need to stop selling important companies such as Nexperia (to CN) and Zivver (to USA).

          • By throwaway_7423 2026-01-0616:211 reply

            > Do you really think if the NSA is not allowed to do something, that they'll be held accountable? In 2026?

            I know more than a few career lawyers who worked or currently work at NSA. It would blow your mind how rigidly they follow the laws and rules when it comes to US citizens.

            Of course I don't expect you to believe me because "I said so" or anything like that. I can tell you definitively that when it comes to US citizens NSA is pretty neutered.

            You may be thinking of the FBI...

    • By nine_k 2026-01-069:322 reply

      Open-source software was created by people who wanted to address their own needs, and we're lucky that we share the same needs. Commercial software companies and media companies were and are unhappy about that, because they lost control and profits.

      Regulated, constrained versions of Internet are being built by governments and some large corporations, to meet their needs. While EU's constraints may look benign (even though they are not), the versions built in PRC, Russia, India, Türkyie are in various degrees openly anti-citizen. As long as citizens' needs (like privacy and unrestricted access) do not align with the ideas of the governments and corporations, we, citizens, are usually the losing side.

      The fix is obvious: regulations should be liberty-preserving, and for that, governments that are better aligned with our, citizens', interests should be voted in.

      And here we encounter a hard problem.

      • By troyvit 2026-01-0615:14

        Open source must be a part of Europe's digital sovereignty (a crucial piece of a post-american internet). The continent otherwise doesn't have the resources to pull it off. Projects like https://eurostack.eu/ are a baby step in that direction.

        Unfortunately that's just one piece of the puzzle. They also need a level of physical infrastructure that will take ages (or a miraculous breakthrough) to build. That too is a hard problem.

      • By exceptione 2026-01-069:462 reply

        It isn't that hard. A democracy can be maximally liberal, including the internet, up to the Tolerance Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

        The people that govern Big Tech have said as much as that they don't believe in democracy, they show they don't believe in fair markets, and they are put to work to implement the threats of a crazy but powerful clique, attacking free and social democracies with an endless stream of sponsored garbage. If the EU had any leaders instead of weasels, they would have closed the sewers that brings lies, hate, conspiracy theories and division. If the EU does not act, it will go down, taken apart by the oligarchs.

        • By postexitus 2026-01-0612:231 reply

          Tolerance Paradox is not a "Tolerance Threshold" - it's a Paradox. You cannot be maximally liberal "up to Tolerance Paradox" - as soon as you are maximally liberal to any threshold, you are no longer liberal - hence the paradox.

          • By exceptione 2026-01-0613:521 reply

              >  you are no longer liberal - hence the paradox.
            
            It seems you define liberal in a rigid way. What I tried to convey is that for any Tolerance to exist, it has room to tolerate anything except Anti-Tolerance, as part of its essence. Paradox isn't a contradiction ("you are no longer liberal"), it is something that might seem like a contradiction. But maybe we agree about that and my wording was confusing.

        • By tmcz26 2026-01-0612:251 reply

          This Tolerance Paradox is something I’ve been discussing lately with family and friends, but was having a hard time articulating. Thanks for the link.

          I see tons of parallels with today’s world, on both sides of the spectrum (left/right, woke/unwoke etc).

          Like, I do agree that most speech should be free and that dark humour and unpopular ideas and whatnot should be allowed even if you or a portion of the population don’t like it.

          However I also think you can’t just say whatever you want and hide behind that free speech protection, because that opens the door to really nasty stuff that the human species has lived through.

          But where’s the line?

          That comedian arrested in the UK for a tweet[0], for instance. Do I agree? No. Do I think it was an intolerant thing to say from my POV? Yes. Do I think it is in fact inciting violence and deserves arrest? No.

          On the other hand, you have people preaching white supremacy and talking about inferior races. We know where that led us.

          So where’s the line? Same thing applies for these “regulated” surveillances. CSAM sounds like a good reason, but the same tools can be used to limit or monitor other speeches and behaviors. (Not to get into the debate of effectiveness, since bypassing is doable if you really want to).

          I don’t have an answer, and I don’t think there is a clear line to be drawn.

          [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07p7v2nn8mo.amp

          • By jansper39 2026-01-0612:571 reply

            The last line of that news article is quite important here. He was also arrested for a harassment charge which if memory serves was more serious than his tweets alone.

    • By anigbrowl 2026-01-067:402 reply

      With one hand they do so much to protect consumer rights for us citizens, but with the other hand they build a survailance state.

      The US is doing that too, and has been pretty open about it for years.

      • By lostlogin 2026-01-068:381 reply

        The us is working to protect consumers too? Or just the surveillance bit?

        • By anigbrowl 2026-01-0619:38

          Just the surveillance bit. I thought it was obvious given the rapid ongoing dismantling of consumer protections, on rereading I see it is not so clear.

      • By rockskon 2026-01-068:044 reply

        Europe wants so very much worse in many cases.

        • By kergonath 2026-01-0613:10

          It’s not "the EU" disappearing people in unmarked vans. It is not perfect, but it follows procedures and protocols to a fault.

          The EU is also not a monolith, it’s different entities with not perfectly aligned interests, some of which representing member states, some of which citizens, again with significant divergence of opinion. The court of justice frequently finds against member states governments, for example.

          TL;DR: "the EU" does not want things. Different participants want different things and what happens in the end is the result of a consensus building process.

        • By boudin 2026-01-069:01

          What the US built is already dystopian, there's nothing to lose moving away from that. Things like chat control are not a good thing neither, but adding regulation can also be beneficial and lead to interoperable standards. That's where the US failed big time. E.g. things like having standardised chargers seems like a no brainer but it required regulators to step in for it to happen.

        • By Phelinofist 2026-01-0610:24

          What things do you mean exactly? I'm not following all of that too closely

        • By zwnow 2026-01-068:374 reply

          [flagged]

          • By modo_mario 2026-01-069:351 reply

            Other than the persistent exceptions (hungary and such) those parties either didn't win or only did so very recently. They were also typically opposed to these kinds of surveillance measures being talked about(of course it's easy to argue they would turn around on this when in power) but it makes this whole argument fall kind of flat.

            As for the rest.... given that my country Belgium nearly balkanized in the past due to sectarianism and it's influence on politics this kind of stuff was a pretty obvious big downside to the migration of the past 2 decades from the start. (It really does become a ball and chain on every kind of effective policy) Especially since we're a bit ahead of many countries on the migration front too.

          • By notarobot123 2026-01-069:03

            You don't like the song so you changed the words but you're still singing along to the same tune.

          • By ljsprague 2026-01-0610:175 reply

            [flagged]

          • By nec4b 2026-01-0617:231 reply

            >>Oh no some immigrant stole something out of my garden

            I thought it was more because of them driving over people at Christmas markets, forming rape gangs or stabbing random people on the streets. It's deep intellectually dishonesty like yours that is driving them to that "party". Which is a bit ironic isn't it?

    • By aleph_minus_one 2026-01-0611:291 reply

      > There is a saying about how us citizens trust companies but not their government, and how Europeans trust their governments but not their companies. Which obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but it's how you can view the EU.

      I would rather say for quite a lot of people in Germany it's that they neither trust the Federal Government nor the EU government nor the US-American tech companies.

      • By graemep 2026-01-0612:51

        > I would rather say for quite a lot of people in Germany it's that they neither trust the Federal Government nor the EU government nor the US-American tech companies.

        I think that is a healthy attitude.

        I am British and do not trust my government or big tech (regardless of where it is based). IMO governments are easily lobbied to utimately tend to take the side of big business.

    • By u_sama 2026-01-0610:494 reply

      >There is a saying about how us citizens trust companies but not their government, and how Europeans trust their governments but not their companies.

      This is a Danish blindspot, Europeans do not trust their governments in large (France is fractured, Southern Europe has endemic corruption, Germany is increasingly authoritarian in order to keep heterodox parties out) and this is in part the source behind the flare up of "far-right" movements in the continent. The infamous EU chat law doesnt help either, and all the abuses of Germany in their misuse of hate speech to punish speech is not a positive development. We do not have real alternatives to most American tech services, and administrations are unwilling to move to Linux based alternatives.

      The EU is also not interested in strengthening the domestic software market by engaging in selective protectionism like the Chinese, because of the extensive lobbying by foreign and domestic actors which are the incumbents and see no interest in a competitive and dynamic environment which would destroy them.

      • By disgruntledphd2 2026-01-0611:17

        > The EU is also not interested in strengthening the domestic software market by engaging in selective protectionism like the Chinese, because of the extensive lobbying by foreign and domestic actors which are the incumbents and see no interest in a competitive and dynamic environment which would destroy them.

        They don't need to though, just require all government software to be released under a free software license, with limited exceptions for national security. The US does very well in software, so the EU should commoditise their complement and focus on free software services. This is both cheaper than the current services, and produces lots of employment for EU based tech people (probably at less money though, unfortunately).

        This is basically what China is doing with their open weights models.

      • By Hizonner 2026-01-0615:25

        > Germany is increasingly authoritarian in order to keep heterodox parties out

        ... and those parties would be even more authoritarian if they got in. Which they might in part because of the reaction. It's possible to get fucked from both ends...

      • By worik 2026-01-0620:521 reply

        > Germany is increasingly authoritarian in order to keep heterodox parties out

        Please explain?

        The Greens are doing well, and certainly are hetrodox.

        Do you mean "keep fascists out"?

        Or do you mean something else?

        • By u_sama 2026-01-078:29

          I would not classify Greens as heterodox, because the whole climate policy (and the degrowth movement overall) is forefront in Germany. The move to close nuclear plants and instead replace it with renewables (which are blocked at the local level by boomer Green elected NIMBYs) is not sound, if your objective is to achieve enrgy transition and 0 fossil fuels.

          As for the fascists, when one looks deeper into the AfD (not that I like them, more the opposite) they are just the old right + immigration issues. Labelling them as fascist is a dangerous thing because it devalues the value of the word and opens the way for true facsicm to come.

    • By css_apologist 2026-01-0615:16

      > With one hand they do so much to protect consumer rights for us citizens, but with the other hand they build a survailance state.

      You say this with no irony as an american..

    • By thefz 2026-01-067:474 reply

      If you think internet surveillance is an EU first, you will be delighted to read about PRISM

      • By mk89 2026-01-068:038 reply

        I think nobody in the EU believes that America is the country of freedom and privacy and anonymity. (Boolean and)

        I guess what the OP meant is that in EU you might have the police knocking at your door for some reasons you don't have in the USA, not because they don't have data about you, but because in the USA you have some very strong constitutional rights that are really hard to bypass.

        Twitter, Tiktok, etc could never be created in the current EU.

        • By ben_w 2026-01-068:14

          > because in the USA you have some very strong constitutional rights that are really hard to bypass.

          It exists, but it is being selectively ignored by those in charge. Don't assume it will automatically defend you, especially not pre-emptively:

          https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jail...

          https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-fire-challenges-unconst...

        • By evrenesat 2026-01-068:55

          Since they can operate in EU, I don't see why they can't be made in EU. There are well known disadvantages that prevents emergence of SV style startups, but I'd argue even that is a good thing.

        • By close04 2026-01-069:11

          > in EU you might have the police knocking at your door for some reasons you don't have in the USA

          Is there any significant difference where the law gives you fewer rights in the EU in this regard? Speaking of knocking, it's very unlikely that in the EU some SWAT team will knock down your door because someone anonymously told them you're dangerous, kill you, and suffer no consequences.

          > but because in the USA you have some very strong constitutional rights that are really hard to bypass

          Other than the right to have guns, which keeps everyone happy and gives the SWAT team a legitimate reason to go in guns blazing, kill you, and get away with it, I'm having a hard time finding a right that isn't routinely subject to some exception. Guaranteed when the ultimate authority on the constitution is staffed by corrupt yes-men.

        • By dep_b 2026-01-0614:05

          “In the EU” only because some countries might have individual laws, unless you have more information about the EU specifically causing that?

          The country with the worst “bad opinion, police comes knocking” is the recently seceded UK.

          And I guess Germany has something against nazism?

        • By PeterStuer 2026-01-069:38

          Netlog was a pretty successful attempt outside the US though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netlog

        • By happymellon 2026-01-0613:26

          Tiktok was also not created in the current US.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok

        • By immibis 2026-01-068:491 reply

          Sure they could. You'd just have to answer subpoenas when the police are trying to identify a user, same as in the USA.

          You might get a few more of them. Recently a bunch of French people received jail time for repeatedly posting how the president was a pedophile and his wife was a man. Because, you know, harassment is illegal in many European countries. But the only obligation by the service provider, if asked, would be to delete the posts and give the user's IP address.

          The EU Digital Services Act is actually a much wider liability shield than the USA's Section 230. I suggest reading it. ISPs ("mere conduits") have basically absolutely immunity, and caches merely have to ensure they make an effort to delete the cached object when the original object disappears (i.e. they have a reasonable expiry time) to be immune. Social media, since it's a content publisher, has more obligations, of course, but they are also not that onerous and things like automated scanning are only required if your site is big enough to afford them.

          • By mk89 2026-01-0613:481 reply

            The second paragraph is exactly why people don't trust when a platform is based in EU.

            I never heard of American presidents going after individuals on Twitter or other platforms. Neither Obama, nor Biden and also not Trump who is receiving so much hatred and bad words, without even touching the assassination attempt. Which is probably the only reason why they threatened to go after people, but that seems to be understandable - and I think that's the line you should not cross in a forum/platform.

            The mindset is completely different.

        • By watwut 2026-01-069:04

          USA does not have strong constitutional rights. It has constitutional rights with zero teeth, little to no judicial backing and about thousands convoluted loopholes that ensure they dont apply to you.

          And when, rarely, they do apply, you get no restitution or relief.

        • By echelon_musk 2026-01-0610:211 reply

          As a bit of trivia ECHELON was discussed in Grand Theft Auto III in 2001. 'Conspiracy Theorist Caller' phones in to Chatterbox FM to discuss and makes a call to free Kevin Mitnick:

          > Come on, do you honestly believe the NSA's echelon system isn't already reading your e-mails, and recording your phone conversations? It's all designed to frighten us so we don't complain about our rights being taken away in the name of fighting whatever boogeyman they come up with today.

          • By literallywho 2026-01-0612:441 reply

            ECHELON was quite popular in games back then. In the Splinter Cell games from the same era (2002), you're an operative of a US black ops organization called "Third Echelon" (and there's a second Echelon too, I guess).

      • By tjpnz 2026-01-067:491 reply

        Or XKeyscore.

        • By input_sh 2026-01-068:02

          Or Carnivore, or Room 641A, or even Project SHAMROCK in the telegram era.

      • By xeonmc 2026-01-068:521 reply

            As an European it was always hard for me to understand American culture. What was fascinating for me is that they like bragging about their freedom which was weird for me, because I didn't think that I have any less freedom than them. I always thought 'What is the difference'. However after this game I finally understand it. NA is just so fucking free.
        
        [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/76bemv/tie...

        • By Tostino 2026-01-0610:10

          You took a joke about the NA LoL teams being so bad compared to the other regions that it was considered a "free win", and turned it into a critique of Europe. Good job...

    • By graemep 2026-01-0612:49

      > Now we all have contingency plans for just that, and a lot of organisations are already actually doing it.

      Who has actually done it?

      What are you going to use instead? You could move servers off MS cloud platforms (although very little has actually happened and there seems to be very few places with a firm commitment to do it) but I am very sceptical that anyone is going to move client devices to anything other than MS, Apple and Google controlled OSes.

    • By Traubenfuchs 2026-01-0610:136 reply

      For computers we have linux, ok, but how are iOS and Android being replaced?

      • By everdrive 2026-01-0611:213 reply

        Mobile phones are baffling to me. I heard a story recently that the Venezuelan government is stopping people on the street and inspecting mobile phones for dissident content. In such an environment, why are people relying on phones for anything? Why trust it at all? This stupid device _could_ get you taken to prison for merely having the wrong ideas, but you've still _just got to_ use it! I'm starting to think that if mobile phones gave parents' children rapid, aggressive brain cancer, all anyone would be talking about is "regulation" and "minimizing usage."

        And I know someone's going to say "not using a phone might look _more_ suspicious!" I suppose but the needle does need to turn at some point, right? This risk was pretty easily foreseeable. If you got arrested for what was found on your phone during an arrest would you ever look at the device the same way again? In 5 years, would you be using it for meaningful or private communication whatsoever?

        • By soco 2026-01-0611:561 reply

          Venezuela you say? The US would be checking my entire social media history, not only what is on the phone, if I ever plan to enter the US.

          • By throw-12-16 2026-01-0613:112 reply

            I'm entering the US for work in a few weeks and I plan on taking burner devices.

        • By BoxOfRain 2026-01-0611:571 reply

          Yeah I do think if your trust in state institutions is gone for whatever reason (such as living in a dictatorship), it'd be absolute madness to carry around an electronic snitch with you. I'm not sure what I would rely on in those circumstances, but it certainly wouldn't be smartphones. Personally I'd want to rely on in-person communication as much as possible.

          • By everdrive 2026-01-0612:00

            I'd go even further. Even if you trust it now, can you trust it in 5 years? How much of your data do apps, companies, and mobile providers hold onto? The real answer is that you don't know. So if your phone is a super precise GPS that you can't turn off (eg: Android) -- were you near a crime scene by chance? How about a big protest 2 years before the political winds shifted. Who knows you were there? You can't know for sure.

        • By Klaster_1 2026-01-076:17

          Phones are just an easy target. Dumb phones still have address books, these are social networks too that can be exploited. In fact, that's how Chechnya prosecutes and kills unwanted people, like gays or regime opponents - by unraveling phone contacts.

      • By wongarsu 2026-01-0610:431 reply

        The EU is slowly weakening Google's grasp on Android, for example by evening the playing field for app stores. You can get google-free Android devices from both Chinese manufacturers and the Netherlands (Fairphone). They aren't terribly attractive right now, but that could quickly change if the demand exists

        At that point Google would probably turn even more hostile to the open source nature of Android, leading to some sort of fork

        • By graemep 2026-01-0612:571 reply

          Google is tightening their grip on Android. They are going to effectively kill of alternative app stores by requiring them to use Google's developer verification (there have been discussions on HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45569371 ). Many countries are introducing things such as age verification and ID apps that require Google Android. A lot of bank apps will only work with Google Android. This is why Fairphone offers a Google Android option, an I would guess that is what most people use.

          There are lots of other problems. As discussed recently the HSBC app will not work if you have installed any software at all from another app store.

      • By hex-m 2026-01-0610:531 reply

        "Google-free" FOSS Android-builds (Graphene, /e/, iodé) are available today and usable for most tasks. Just make sure your government IDs and banking apps don't depend on proprietary Google-only features.

        • By fulafel 2026-01-076:09

          Amusingly often banking are apps purpousefully configured to refuse working on the more secure Android builds ("SafetyNet").

      • By Quothling 2026-01-0613:18

        If the EU made a decent certification option so that the Google Store wasn't necessary for a lot of our apps, then Graphene and similar would be good replacements. As it is I couldn't use a single app on my android phone (I basically only have public sector apps + banking) without the Google Store thing. Since these all either require the Google Store themselves or the national digital ID which does

      • By fsflover 2026-01-0612:02

        My daily driver is a GNU/Linux phone, Librem 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librem_5

      • By hulitu 2026-01-099:18

        > For computers we have linux

        US has it. There are some non-US contributors, but, the Linux Foundation is in US, Linus is in US, kernel.org is in US.

    • By ljsprague 2026-01-0610:113 reply

      >There is a saying about how US citizens trust companies but not their government, and how Europeans trust their governments but not their companies.

      Almost always easier to pick a new company than a new government.

      • By bayindirh 2026-01-0610:29

        > Almost always easier to pick a new company than a new government.

        As long as the company you left doesn't buy the company you just picked.

      • By kergonath 2026-01-0613:28

        As long as you have decent antitrust regulation with teeth and you ignore all natural monopolies.

      • By wongarsu 2026-01-0610:44

        That's what democracy is supposed to fix

    • By TacticalCoder 2026-01-0611:282 reply

      > ... 10 years ago people would've laughed if you talked about leaving Microsoft and iOS in enterprise. Now we all have contingency plans for just that, ...

      If, at long last, Trump doing insane things can help get rid of that piece of undescribable turd that Windows is in the EU, please just please Trump: go take the Groenland.

      As an EU citizen I'm gladly giving Groenland up (even if it's not in the EU but belongs to Denmark which is, itself, in the EU) if in exchange I don't ever have to see a computer running Windows ever again in Europe.

      • By embedding-shape 2026-01-0611:452 reply

        > As an EU citizen I'm gladly giving Groenland up (even if it's not in the EU but belongs to Denmark which is, itself, in the EU)

        Nitpicky, but I guess ultimately it kind of/might matter: Greenland belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark (Danish Realm), not Denmark. Denmark (often called Denmark Proper) is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which also Faroe Islands belong to. Denmark is in Europe + EU, Kingdom of Denmark isn't in EU, but main part of it is indeed in Europe.

        I think if Greenland was actually part of Denmark, it too would be part of EU, as I don't think you can selectively "unmark" specific territories in a country to not be in EU if the country itself is in EU. But since Greeland isn't actually a part of Denmark, it isn't part of the EU.

        • By kergonath 2026-01-0613:331 reply

          > I think if Greenland was actually part of Denmark, it too would be part of EU, as I don't think you can selectively "unmark" specific territories in a country to not be in EU if the country itself is in EU.

          Yes, you can. Plenty of overseas territories span the complete gamut between autonomous regions outside the EU and overseas EU regions. Each one is a special case and has specific reasons why there are inside or outside the EU.

          • By embedding-shape 2026-01-0616:202 reply

            Maybe I worded it poorly, or someone of us must misunderstand something. Are you saying there are regions that are outside of Europe-the-continent, but that are a part of EU, as it belongs to a country that is within EU too? Which one(s) are those, if so?

        • By VorpalWay 2026-01-0612:091 reply

          > Denmark is in Europe + EU, Kingdom of Denmark isn't in EU, but main part of it is indeed in Europe.

          Main part by population. By area, not so.

          • By embedding-shape 2026-01-0616:21

            Was thinking more by "rule" than anything, since it is a monarchy after all. Folketing is located in Copenhagen.

      • By zqna 2026-01-0612:49

        If Greenland is taken over by US, Windows will be your least of the problem. But tunnel vision is oh-so-common in Europe, both between politics and populace

    • By anthk 2026-01-0619:35

      iOS was always irrelevant in Europe. No regulation was needed, ever. It was useless.

    • By linus8989 2026-01-0710:54

      [dead]

    • By miroljub 2026-01-0613:473 reply

      [flagged]

      • By Attrecomet 2026-01-0614:21

        That is, of course, a deeply misleading characterization. You might as well start ranting about the EUSSR in your next comment. The US regime is deeply undemocratic, cleptocratic and corrupt, but delegating democratically elected power isn't undemocratic in itself.

      • By stuartloxton 2026-01-0613:52

        The european parliament is elected by citizens, and the council is formed of the heads of state of each member country (which would have been elected in the way each country decides).

        Which part with direct power isn't elected?

      • By gambiting 2026-01-0615:08

        >>Unlike national governments, EU ruling regime is not elected by EU citizens.

        It literally is. What a deeply misinformed and frankly misleading take.

    • By sujsjsv 2026-01-0610:341 reply

      You won’t ever be able to use anything but Microsoft and other American products. I feel sorry for you. Mr Trump and Lindsey are laughing directly at your face, it seems.

  • By jeroenhd 2026-01-068:393 reply

    > If the EU repeals Article 6 of the Copyright Directive, some smart geeks in Finland could reverse-engineer Apple's bootloaders and make a hardware dongle that jailbreaks phones so that they can use alternative app stores, and sell the dongle – along with the infrastructure to operate an app store – to anyone in the world who wants to go into business competing with Apple for users and app vendors.

    I have twoo problems with this idea.

    1. Users are extremely lazy and anything that doesn't work out of the box doesn't gain any commercial traction. See: Epic Games Store, Amazon App Store, F-Droid to some extent.

    2. Apple already allows alternative app stores inside of Finland (the entire EU, actually). There's the issue of Apple's bullshit installation fees, of course, but with Epic covering those so far, cost doesn't seem to be a problem when it comes to the proliferation of app stores.

    While I'm all for an iPhone running free code, commercial interests for alternative app stores won't be what will bring forth these improvements.

    • By ACCount37 2026-01-0610:45

      The first problem is technical.

      Jailbreaks aren't stopped by being ostensibly illegal to do. They're stopped by being a nigh-impossible attack conducted against an adversary that keeps hardening the systems against it.

      Which is why the fight for unlocked bootloaders and software freedom is such an important fight. It's theoretically possible to create an "unbreakable lock" and forbid the users from having any control over the software forever.

      Which is why user freedom must be legally mandated, and engineered into the hardware on the ground floor. You can't rely on being able to "hack the freedom in after the fact".

    • By darkwater 2026-01-069:19

      If it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone (assuming it's technically possible) there will be an ecosystem of companies that make the UX friction as low as possible for casual users.

      What would worry me is that the US would probably start a big scale digital warfare operation against EU citizens as soon as technically possible.

    • By boudin 2026-01-069:14

      Allowing people to own their devices and modify them can first foster creativity and competition, which can lead to the creation of standards, alternatives and businesses around that.

      The current situation makes it impossible to create a business from modifying an existing product, you need to start from blank slates, making it hard to crack a walled-garden.

  • By pu_pe 2026-01-067:0812 reply

    > If the EU repeals Article 6 of the Copyright Directive, some smart geeks in Finland could reverse-engineer Apple's bootloaders and make a hardware dongle that jailbreaks phones so that they can use alternative app stores

    Apple could easily block this, and in the situation described here of a complete rupture with the US, they would no longer operate and sell phones in the EU. If Google decided to do the same, that essentially leaves Europeans without smartphones. Microsoft could "brick" the rest of the EU's digital infrastructure overnight if they so wished, or were compelled to do so.

    This makes the transition described in the article much more difficult. Although likely more urgent, from an European perspective.

    • By flumpcakes 2026-01-069:064 reply

      What I think most US people don't realise, is this would overnight start the slow but complete collapse of the US and it's economy.

      Europe can make alternatives to US tech, and with it's track record it will probably be more open with more legitimate options and less predatory monopolies.

      Once that is established with a home grown market of 450m people it will start competing with US in all the other markets.

      Let's not forgot how many EU people work for US tech.

      • By kettlecorn 2026-01-069:44

        I suspect the wheels are in motion for many such transitions away from US dependency, in software and other fields.

        Whenever trust is massively breached, and I believe much of the EU feels strongly that the US has breached trust, the natural action is to regroup and then gradually begin figuring out how to not be vulnerable to the same risk again.

        If the US continues escalating the Greenland situation I expect that process will speed up massively.

      • By dash2 2026-01-0613:032 reply

        Europe can make alternatives to US tech

        Then why are there approximately no European tech companies? You remember that FT graph....

        • By oytis 2026-01-0614:341 reply

          We did have alternatives to US tech, they just lost competition (fair or not) to US companies, and because tech is a winner takes it all industry, they ceased to exist. Should US companies leave EU though, we absolutely are in a position to have our own tech again.

          • By flumpcakes 2026-01-0618:42

            They are either crushed my American monopolies and enforcing US laws abroad, or European companies are bought-out wholesale by American companies. Europe was too scared to enforce their own protectionist schemes because it always upset the US. Europe could be a superpower, if it wanted to.

        • By monooso 2026-01-0613:29

          The article discusses many of the (unfair) tactics which have lead to US tech dominance.

      • By silvestrov 2026-01-069:373 reply

        The easy part of a smartphone to create for EU is the part that is done in the US.

        The difficult part is the hardware. That is also why the iPhone is produced in Asia. Replacing TSMC is much more difficult than the software.

        • By petcat 2026-01-0612:281 reply

          > iPhone is produced in Asia. Replacing TSMC

          iPhone chips are largely produced in Arizona, and TSMC's 2nm fabs are scheduled to come online by 2028. 30% of TSMC's global production is schedule to be produced in America.

          USA has been strategically re-homing TSMC to the USA mainland for a long time now.

          Contrast with the EU which has done nothing to become self-reliant, and really just has no ideas. It is unfortunate.

          • By flumpcakes 2026-01-0614:271 reply

            Which iPhone chips? The A19 in the latest iPhones use TSMC N3P which AFAIK Arizona is not equipped to produce.

            It appears that TSMC are not deploying the latest nodes to US for multiple years after they've entered volume production in Taiwan.

        • By blell 2026-01-0610:145 reply

          Creating good smartphone software is not easy. Only Apple has achieved it. Google is close. The rest are so far behind in the race they think they are leading.

          • By lxgr 2026-01-0611:53

            Because there was arguably no need for a third option. The current duopoly only exists because it was seen as risk-free, and propping up an alternative was seen as uneconomical.

            > Creating good smartphone software is not easy.

            Yes, but it's not rocket science either (and even if it were, the EU has both rocket scientists and a space port).

            Maybe it's been too long for people to even imagine it, but European companies were fully capable of developing a smartphone OS and running an app certification platform (there were no app stores yet, as the industry was very fragmented) less than two decades ago.

          • By data-ottawa 2026-01-0613:44

            I would argue MS did with windows phone, and Palm and Nokia did too. BlackBerry as well, but less flexibly.

            They weren’t commercially successful because of network effects, which I think matter less when your back is against the wall to migrate away from the duopoly.

          • By VorpalWay 2026-01-0612:201 reply

            Android is open source (decreasingly, but still). A reasonable starting point would be forking it and adding replacements for the proprietary Google Play services, app store etc.

            Gobally Android also has a much larger market share than Apple. (Yes the US is the opposite, it is an outlier.)

          • By BadBadJellyBean 2026-01-0614:151 reply

            > Only Apple has achieved it. Google is close.

            Debatable

            Android is a solid basis for a homegrown solution. We just never had the need to build one just yet. What Google and Apple built was convenient. But it's not as irreplaceable as some might think.

          • By JCattheATM 2026-01-0720:38

            Apple was behind Google for the longest time, lacking very basic features they didn't get until years later. Don't let the blue bubbles cult fool you.

      • By PeterStuer 2026-01-069:423 reply

        Technically, sure, but as long as the US dollar is the 'world reserve currency' any attempt to do so that would threaten to be a success can be easily 'bought out' by the US just by creating a few more bits on a ledger.

        • By flumpcakes 2026-01-069:561 reply

          USD is about 2/3 of foreign exchange reserves. Which definitely is the lion's share. However, the more the US prattles about, the lower that ratio will become, the less soft power the US has.

          • By hshdhdhj4444 2026-01-0611:26

            It’s rapidly declining as the world reserve. Thats part of the over 10% decline in the value of the dollar last year (it still amazes me that those prattling on about the rise in the S&P last year dont realize that of the 16% increase, over 10% was eaten up by the USD falling, so the real increase was closer to 6% which is remarkably average if not below average, when considering higher than normal inflation).

            The other part that Americans aren’t seeing coming is a reduction in the reduced willingness of the rest of rhe world to finance American debt. The last few rounds have seen a much higher percentage of corporate debt purchases as opposed to sovereign purchases. Which is fine for now, but if a slowdown hits, corporate purchases of U.S. debt will reduce in a way sovereign purchases never did (in fact those tend to increase).

            That would severely impact the ability of the Fed to goose a slowing economy by lowering interest rates.

        • By Cthulhu_ 2026-01-0615:42

          It's only one of many; I think (armchair gut feeling etc, not an economist) that the euro was one of the best economic decisions in recent history. Unless Europe falls apart - which currently many outside forces are trying to achieve - the euro will remain one of the safest currencies to use.

        • By sdoering 2026-01-0610:01

          Except that the US Dollar is declining as a "world reserve currency" [1].

          [1]: https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/currencies...

    • By TrackerFF 2026-01-0613:451 reply

      Well, two issues here:

      1) The moment US decides to completely exit EU and brick their devices, China will step in and provide the alternatives. Or it will trigger some tech arms race inside Europe, and we will see European providers rise up.

      2) US Tech companies can't afford to pull out. They might do some short-lived performative black-outs to show European customers how dependent they are, and they will for sure run to the government, who in turn will start trade wars. But in the end they simply can't afford to just pull out completely.

      As others have mentioned, not only is it a danger to their own revenue, but the US stock market is being carried by these tech companies.

      The US has always profited the most from providing products / services which are better and cheaper to Europe, to such a degree that organic growth has been naturally suppressed.

      Necessity is the mother of invention.

      • By general1465 2026-01-0810:15

        > 2) US Tech companies can't afford to pull out. They might do some short-lived performative black-outs to show European customers how dependent they are, and they will for sure run to the government, who in turn will start trade wars. But in the end they simply can't afford to just pull out completely.

        Yep, case and point is current situation in Russia, where US companies "pulled" out due to sanctions, but not really.

    • By spiritplumber 2026-01-068:22

      The EU is a bigger market than the US when it comes to smartphones. So Apple would block this about as much as they would block moving over to USB-C.

    • By atherton94027 2026-01-067:46

      Sure this could happen but that seems like a very last resort. The only reason the US economy is still competitive is tech stocks so cutting off ~35% of your income seem like it would cause a lot of downstream effects

    • By ben_w 2026-01-068:261 reply

      Microsoft, yes and that would be catastrophic.

      For security quality reasons, I hope Apple have made that suggestion impossible, but for law enforcement reasons I doubt it and anticipate a backdoor exists.

      Google wouldn't block enough of Android to matter: Core is open source, EU forks/alternatives are likely already under development, and even if not a complete rupture with the US also likely means rapidly getting comfortable with China despite everything, and China already have Android forks.

      However, Google docs/sheets/etc are a common business alternative to Microsoft, and therefore such a transatlantic rupture also cuts that. FWIW, I've never encountered a business using LibreOffice etc.

      • By boudin 2026-01-069:26

        Security is a fallacy here because, being a US company, it is technically not secured by default as it has backdoors (or one has to assume it has backdoors and those cannot even be audited). Then it is just about the sense of security which is based on the threat model you consider threatening to you. You do not chose who you are the enemy of though and in fascist countries with no regards to the rule of law like the USA, this becomes a fairly important threat model to take into account.

        Libreoffice is used quite a bit in administrations across EU. I would expect more stickiness to microsoft caused by legacy applications that requires windows to run rather than office.

    • By sschueller 2026-01-067:222 reply

      ASML could also "brick" their machines running in the US.

      • By tonyhart7 2026-01-067:261 reply

        no

        • By dxdm 2026-01-068:143 reply

          Explain?

          • By PeterStuer 2026-01-069:53

            ASML is considered 'strategic' and its freedom to operate is significantly constrained by international politics, specifically US-led efforts to limit China's access to advanced semiconductor technology. The Dutch government, under pressure from the United States, has implemented and tightened export license requirements for various ASML products destined for China, including both advanced EUV and some older-generation DUV machines. These controls are tied to US export administration regulations, as some components and underlying technology in ASML machines are of US origin, giving the US jurisdiction. The company must comply with US law, which has led to actions such as rejecting job applications from nationals of sanctioned countries.

            Besides this, do you really think ASML's major shareholders, Capital Research and Management Company, Blackrock, Vanguard, would support a board that would consider 'bricking' US machines?

          • By tonyhart7 2026-01-068:472 reply

            there is a reason why US can force ASML to stop selling its machine to China

            learn EUV technology history first, it originated from US department of energy research program, because of cost Gov decided to halt it but multiple private company take over the development but US Gov still hold a patent/license from that technology

          • By ggm 2026-01-068:201 reply

            It's a joint venture with US companies. We talk about it as purely European, but it's not.

      • By tick_tock_tick 2026-01-068:291 reply

        The USA basically owns ASML since they invented the tech it's why they have to ask the USA congress permission to do stuff.

        • By Cthulhu_ 2026-01-0615:51

          ? EUV lithography was an international undertaking, some US research projects sure, but also Japanese (Hiroo Kinoshita, 80's), Russian (Georgiy Vaschenko, who is on all the patents for the 13.5 nm laser used (https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Georgiy+Vaschenko)), Dutch (of course), etc.

          It's kind of ironic to think of a company as state controlled by the US given how anti-state-controlled the US can be when it comes to companies. ASML has majority shareholders in US companies like Intel and co, but that doesn't mean the US government has a say in it.

          I mean they do because of international politics - just like the Dutch government has a say in things - but still.

    • By scotty79 2026-01-067:431 reply

      > Apple could easily block this, and in the situation described here of a complete rupture with the US, they would no longer operate and sell phones in the EU. If Google decided to do the same, that essentially leaves Europeans without smartphones. Microsoft could "brick" the rest of the EU's digital infrastructure overnight if they so wished, or were compelled to do so.

      All the more reasons to go scorched earth on American companies. There's a point in every blackmail where the only way forward is through.

      • By flumpcakes 2026-01-069:11

        I think this is partly why the EU is trying to invest in native semiconductor technologies/companies Which is strange, because usually the EU doesn't make strategic moves like this (compare it to China, where nearly every thing it does is strategic).

    • By yuchtman 2026-01-067:351 reply

      The idea of Apple and/or Google just stop selling phones in the EU seems ... unlikely. A quick search tells me something between a fourth and a third of Apple revenue is in the EU, you really think they'd just stop selling in the EU?

      Gotta also remember, that even if the EU would allow this, your average phone user would not use it. Just like your average phone user doesn't root their android smartphone or installs Lineage/Graphene/eOS/whatever. Even if it were made easier (or possible) for more phones, the vast majority would not use it and Apple and Google would still make a lot of money.

      • By jryb 2026-01-067:46

        But in the proposed scenario, there wouldn’t be any technical hurdles or effort required by the phone’s owner - you could have this be a service offered by businesses. Maybe even the place that sells the phone would pre-jailbreak it for you.

    • By Cthulhu_ 2026-01-0615:32

      Not only that, but also... only a small percentage of people actually wants this and / or would do this, the vast majority of consumers doesn't mess with their stuff even if they could.

      Same with the alternative app store support, it reminds me of when the EU mandated Microsoft to offer a Windows without Media Player. It didn't sell, because consumers don't actually care much - Media Player wasn't obnoxiously in the way.

    • By nottorp 2026-01-067:532 reply

      > that essentially leaves Europeans without smartphones

      ... for about 20 minutes before China steps in. Or Samsung with de Googled Android models.

      • By delis-thumbs-7e 2026-01-068:261 reply

        Or maybe… Finland? There is linux phones already, so perhaps Apple and Google f-king off might not be a bad thing.

        • By nottorp 2026-01-069:472 reply

          The new Nokias are Android with Google services afaik. It may take a bit to de google them and take out all the non open source parts out of the OS.

          • By eloisant 2026-01-0616:29

            That would be Jolla, a Finnish phone company that I think was founded by ex-Nokia employees.

          • By delis-thumbs-7e 2026-01-0614:30

            I was refering to Jolla and Sailfish OS. They have a new phone coming up, or already did.

      • By bigfishrunning 2026-01-0612:17

        Lol thank God there are so many companies outside of Europe producing technology

    • By dleeftink 2026-01-067:45

      In case bricks will be thrown, the response from the receiving party will likely skew to the argument presented here--circumvention of technical locks.

      You'd catch the brick, sand it and repurpose so it'll fit your home.

HackerNews