Europe wants to end its dangerous reliance on US internet technology

2026-01-2423:21297257theconversation.com

As the US increases political pressure on Europe, it’s possible to imagine the continent losing access to key computing services.

Imagine the internet suddenly stops working. Payment systems in your local food store go down. Healthcare systems in the regional hospital flatline. Your work software tools, and all the information they contain, disappear.

You reach out for information but struggle to communicate with family and friends, or to get the latest updates on what is happening, as social media platforms are all down. Just as someone can pull the plug on your computer, it’s possible to shut down the system it connects to.

This isn’t an outlandish scenario. Technical failures, cyber-attacks and natural disasters can all bring down key parts of the internet. And as the US government makes increasing demands of European leaders, it is possible to imagine Europe losing access to the digital infrastructure provided by US firms as part of the geopolitical bargaining process.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the EU’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, has highlighted the “structural imperative” for Europe to “build a new form of independence” – including in its technological capacity and security. And, in fact, moves are already being made across the continent to start regaining some independence from US technology.

A small number of US-headquartered big tech companies now control a large proportion of the world’s cloud computing infrastructure, that is the global network of remote servers that store, manage and process all our apps and data. Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud are reported to hold about 70% of the European market, while European cloud providers have only 15%.

My research supports the idea that relying on a few global providers increases vulnerabilty for Europe’s private and public sectors – including the risk of cloud computing disruption, whether caused by technical issues, geopolitical disputes or malicious activity.

Two recent examples – both the result of apparent technical failures – were the hours‑long AWS incident in October 2025, which disrupted thousands of services such as banking apps across the world, and the major Cloudflare incident two months later, which took LinkedIn, Zoom and other communication platforms offline.

The impact of a major power disruption on cloud computing services was also demonstrated when Spain, Portugal and some of south-west France endured a massive power cut in April 2025.

EU president Ursula von der Leyen urges greater European independence in response to ‘seismic change’. Video: Guardian News.

What happens in a digital blackout?

There are signs that Europe is starting to take the need for greater digital independence more seriously. In the Swedish coastal city of Helsingborg, for example, a one-year project is testing how various public services would function in the scenario of a digital blackout.

Would elderly people still receive their medical prescriptions? Can social services continue to provide care and benefits to all the city’s residents?

This pioneering project seeks to quantify the full range of human, technical and legal challenges that a collapse of technical services would create, and to understand what level of risk is acceptable in each sector. The aim is to build a model of crisis preparedness that can be shared with other municipalities and regions later this year.

Elsewhere in Europe, other forerunners are taking action to strengthen their digital sovereignty by weaning themselves off reliance on global big tech companies – in part through collaboration and adoption of open source software. This technology is treated as a digital public good that can be moved between different clouds and operated under sovereign conditions.

In northern Germany, the state of Schleswig-Holstein has made perhaps the clearest break with digital dependency. The state government has replaced most of its Microsoft-powered computer systems with open-source alternatives, cancelling nearly 70% of its licenses. Its target is to use big tech services only in exceptional cases by the end of the decade.

Across France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, governments are investing both nationally and transnationally in the development of digital open-source platforms and tools for chat, video and document management – akin to digital Lego bricks that administrations can host on their own terms.

In Sweden, a similar system for chat, video and online collaboration, developed by the National Insurance Agency, runs in domestic data centres rather than foreign clouds. It is being offered as a service for Swedish public authorities looking for sovereign digital alternatives.

Your choices matter

For Europe – and any nation – to meaningfully address the risks posed by digital blackout and cloud collapse, digital infrastructure needs to be treated with the same seriousness as physical infrastructure such as ports, roads and power grids.

Control, maintenance and crisis preparedness of digital infrastructure should be seen as core public responsibilities, rather than something to be outsourced to global big tech firms, open for foreign influence.

To encourage greater focus on digital resilience among its member states, the EU has developed a cloud sovereignty framework to guide procurement of cloud services – with the intention of keeping European data under European control. The upcoming Cloud and AI Development Act is expected to bring more focus and resources to this area.

Governments and private companies should be encouraged to demand security, openness and interoperability when seeking bids for provision of their cloud services – not merely low prices. But in the same way, as individuals, we can all make a difference with the choices we make.

Just as it’s advisable to ensure your own access to food, water and medicine in a time of crisis, be mindful of what services you use personally and professionally. Consider where your emails, personal photos and conversations are stored. Who can access and use your data, and under what conditions? How easily can everything be backed up, retrieved and transferred to another service?

No country, let alone continent, will ever be completely digitally independent, and nor should they be. But by pulling together, Europe can ensure its digital systems remain accessible even in a crisis – just as is expected from its physical infrastructure.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By Anonyneko 2026-01-250:013 reply

    >In the Swedish coastal city of Helsingborg, for example, a one-year project is testing how various public services would function in the scenario of a digital blackout

    Russia has been doing these blackout exercises for many years now all across the country, forcing major services to make serious changes to their infrastructure. I assume similar things happen regularly in Iran and China. Europe is incredibly late to the game, and doing random experiments in small towns is not even nearly enough. Weaning off government services is also not enough, physical networks have to be prepared for it, commercial services have to follow, and the general populace has to be incentivized to use them. Otherwise, the damage from a blackout will still be unsustainable. It doesn't sound democratic, but this should be treated as a matter of national security. That is, if self-reliance is an actual goal - waiting for things to possibly blow over is still an option, but this is one of those matters where I believe half-measures are worse than both of the extremes.

    • By kemiller 2026-01-250:271 reply

      Ironically, Russia probing defenses in Europe is functioning like Chaos Monkey — revealing vulnerabilities and triggering hardening.

      • By ls612 2026-01-250:462 reply

        It’s certainly doing the first, not so sure about the second.

        • By Nextgrid 2026-01-250:502 reply

          The main vulnerability of the Western world isn't technical, it's that we voluntarily surrendered our communication and social fabrics to advertising-driven businesses that will happily host and promote anything as long as it generates engagement. This makes it trivial for foreign agents to sway public opinion where as back in the day influencing media required actual capital and connections.

          Unfortunately, a lot of our own people (and especially politicians) make money out of this situation so there's very little incentive to change this. Just look at the reaction every time regulations designed to curtail Big Tech ad-driven monopolies (EU DMA, GDPR, etc) are discussed. Our greed is what makes us vulnerable.

          • By terminalshort 2026-01-251:056 reply

            Who is the "we" that you think surrendered control here? Freedom of the press necessitates that anyone can publish freely even if what they publish is foreign propaganda.

            • By Nextgrid 2026-01-251:171 reply

              I wasn't talking about press, I was talking about how ad-driven social media became effectively the only communication tool and we still refuse to enact/enforce effective regulation to curb its hegemony.

              • By terminalshort 2026-01-251:332 reply

                It became the primary communication tool because that is what people chose to use when presented with the alternatives. If you want to force people to use different channels then that is a violation of freedom of the press.

                • By Nextgrid 2026-01-252:001 reply

                  Again I am not talking about press. I am talking about communication tools.

                  Yes the free market has decided that these tools are the "best" option as long as the negative externalities (such as exposure to malicious actors - foreign or otherwise) are not being priced in. We need adequate regulation to price in such externalities.

                  For that matter, press and conventional media is subject to many regulations that don't apply to social media. Conventional media wouldn't get away with even a sliver of what social media is allowed to get away with time and time again.

                  • By terminalshort 2026-01-252:011 reply

                    > Again I am not talking about press. I am talking about communication tools.

                    Which is the entire fucking point of freedom of the press

                    Please give an example of something social media gets away with that any other media would be punished for.

                    • By Nextgrid 2026-01-252:161 reply

                      I am still not sure why you keep going on about press. I did not refer to press in my comment and I make no opinion on it here.

                      I am referring to the fact that back in the day communication used to be mediated by domestic, neutral carriers who got paid to carry communication neutrally regardless of source or content.

                      Nowadays, communication is primarily mediated by a handful of foreign companies that prioritize advertising revenue at all costs and will choose which media to carry and promote based on expected ad revenue. They are effectively acting as pseudo-press without the checks & balances and oversight that actual press is subject to.

                      > Please give an example of something social media gets away with that any other media would be punished for.

                      When’s the last time you saw an obvious scam advertised in a conventional print newspaper or magazine? Now check Facebook or YouTube ads. If such an ad made it through any reputable magazine heads will be rolling and they’d expose themselves to lawsuits, but social media keeps getting a pass.

                      Now, let’s say you’re a foreign threat actor and want to sway public opinion. You can’t just get in touch with the NYT/etc and ask them nicely. You’d need to buy and cultivate such influence over time and do so covertly because their people would get in trouble if there’s an obvious paper/money trail.

                      With Facebook? Create a page, make your propaganda video “engaging”, boost it with bot farms for the initial push and then Facebook will happily keep hosting and promoting your propaganda as long as its advertising revenue outweighs the costs of hosting it. That’s orders of magnitude cheaper than buying influence with traditional media.

                      • By terminalshort 2026-01-253:17

                        You have to be joking. Print magazines have always been plastered with shitty scam ads for MLM pyramid schemes, bullshit weight loss treatments, psychic readings, and every other get rich quick scheme and ripoff known to man. And, of course, there were no adblockers. Were you not alive before the internet? You think they weren't full of foreign propaganda too? I'd like to introduce you to my friend AIPAC...

                • By TheOtherHobbes 2026-01-251:531 reply

                  According to Reporters without Frontiers, the US ranks 57th out of 180 countries on press freedom. It's really not the model we should all be aspiring to.

            • By antonvs 2026-01-2520:42

              These things are not an inevitable consequence of freedom of the press. Commercially-influenced legislation like the Communications Decency Act, which largely absolves platforms for the content of the material they publish, have pushed us in this direction. One could certainly imagine legislation which puts society's interests first to improve the situation.

              The real problem is the almost total capture of the political process by money, which weaponizes the legislative branch against common citizens in the interests of corporate owners.

            • By TheOtherHobbes 2026-01-251:502 reply

              Being subject to the topic promotion and suppression technologies [1] and bizarre political whims of billionaire media owners is an unusual definition of "freedom."

              [1] See for example:

              https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship...

              • By terminalshort 2026-01-252:031 reply

                All media is subject to the whims of its owners. That's freedom of the press. The only other option is that the government tells the owners what they can and can't publish.

                • By adrianN 2026-01-253:241 reply

                  Another option is that the government limits the power individuals can have. How many people control, say, 80% of the media? Do you need more than one hand to count them?

                  • By terminalshort 2026-01-254:493 reply

                    How do you define "control" here? Social media, which everyone here is complaining about, is by far the most open and democratic form of mass media that has ever existed.

                    • By adrianN 2026-01-255:28

                      I’d argue that social media stopped being democratic as it introduced algorithmic content selection. But today perhaps a bigger problem is bot farms shaping public opinion.

                    • By petre 2026-01-255:54

                      Bots don't count as people. They're not represented demographically. They also don't have voting rights. Yet they're spreading propaganda to influence how people vote. So one could argue social media is rather anti democratoc.

                    • By Silhouette 2026-01-2510:03

                      Social media, which everyone here is complaining about, is by far the most open and democratic form of mass media that has ever existed.

                      It would be if it were actually social - if the messages people saw were written by authors those people were interested in because of some kind of social relationship. But of course that's not really the case.

                      One problem here IMHO is that the meaning of terms like "press" and "media" has shifted significantly with modern Internet trends. Freedom of the press used to be an extension of freedom of speech. The principle was essentially the same but it acknowledged that some speech is organised and published to a wider audience. Neither has ever enjoyed absolute protection in law anywhere that I'm aware of because obviously they can come into conflict with other rights and freedoms we also think are important. But they have been traditionally regarded as the norm in Western society - something to be protected and not to be interfered with lightly.

                      But with freedom must come responsibility. The traditional press has always had the tabloids and the broadsheets or some similar distinction between highbrow and lowbrow content. But for the most part even the tabloids respected certain standards. What you published might be your spin but you honestly believed the facts in your piece were essentially true. If you made a mistake then you also published a retraction. If someone said they were speaking off the record then you didn't reveal the identity of your source. You didn't disclose things that were prohibited by a court order to protect someone involved in a trial from prejudice or from the trial itself collapsing. Sometimes the press crossed a line and sometimes it paid a very heavy price for it but mostly these "rules" were followed.

                      In the modern world of social media there are individuals with much larger audiences than any newspaper still in print but who don't necessarily respect those traditional standards at all and who can cause serious harm as a direct result. I don't see why there is any ethical or legal argument for giving them the same latitude that has been given to traditional media if they aren't keeping up their side of the traditional bargain in return. We have long had laws in areas like defamation and national security that do limit the freedom to say unfair or harmful things. Maybe it's time we applied the same standards to wilful misinformation where someone with a large audience makes claims that are clearly and objectively false that then lead to serious harm.

              • By RobotToaster 2026-01-252:292 reply

                "All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake "public opinion" for the benefit of the bourgeoisie." - Vladimir Lenin

                • By direwolf20 2026-01-252:42

                  The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to beg in the streets, to sleep under bridges, and to steal bread.

                • By smsm42 2026-01-253:40

                  Yes, Vladimir Lenin is likely one of the most appropriate people to quote on the question of freedom. Maybe only his successor Joseph Stalin is better in that regard.

            • By megous 2026-01-251:56

              There are about 50 people on EU sanctions list that tried this, who can't travel, or engage in any normal economic activity.

            • By direwolf20 2026-01-252:41

              I think "we" is everyone.

            • By dns_snek 2026-01-2514:24

              Can you name a single country which meets this definition of "freedom of the press"?

              It's not the US, the UK, or any of the EU countries, certainly not Russia, China, or India.

          • By tosti 2026-01-256:50

            If s/engagement/revenue/ then yes.

        • By whynotmaybe 2026-01-250:52

          The second isn't publicly promoted.

    • By deepbluev7 2026-01-2510:17

      You probably want to start testing with a small blast-radius though and expand the radius after fixing the obvious things. Doing country or EU wide testing would likely be quite noisy, because there will be plenty of issues of various sizes and it will be disruptive while not providing as much more information as the disruption would cost. Fixing smaller things first and then expanding to larger scale testing to catch the remaining or larger scale issues seems like the better approach to me, but that depends possibly on how time critical being prepared for such events is.

    • By bethekidyouwant 2026-01-253:322 reply

      Why would there be a blackout? Is like hardening against a gas shortage

      • By jenadine 2026-01-257:082 reply

        If the Us imposes sanctions such as "no more login to any Google/Apple/Microsoft/... accounts from EU citizens until they give Greenland".

        Many European companies would stop to a halt as they can't access any documents they have "on the cloud" or maybe can't even access their own phone or computer.

        • By dns_snek 2026-01-269:22

          I think this particular scenario is far fetched as that would be economic suicide for the US, an empire-ending decision. And while not everyone has backups, many/most of the important companies do so they would eventually recover.

        • By KronisLV 2026-01-2514:421 reply

          > Many European companies would stop to a halt as they can't access any documents they have "on the cloud" or maybe can't even access their own phone or computer.

          I hate that "Nobody got fired for choosing IBM" is a thing and that the people suggesting that we have good enough FOSS options when things were being planned out were probably given a dismissive look by the business people who were promised the sky by MS salesmen.

          At least that's how I imagine it probably looked, given my own past experience of suggesting PostgreSQL and in the end the project going with Oracle (it's okay when it works, but for those particular projects PostgreSQL would have worked better, given the issues I've seen in the following years). It's the same non-utilitarian / cargo-cult thinking that leads to other solutions like SQLite not being picked when the workload would actually better be suited for it than a "serious" RDBMS with a network in the middle.

          Apply the same to server OSes (Windows vs Linux distros and even DEB based distros vs RPM RHEL-compatibles), MS Office vs LibreOffice when you don't even need advanced features and stuff like Slack/Teams vs self-hosting Mattermost or Zulip or whatever. It's not even jumping on untested software, but fairly boring and okay packages (with their limitations known that are objectively often NOT dealbreakers) and not making yourself vendor-locked (hostage).

          I guess I could also make the more realpolitik take - use MS, use Oracle, use whatever is the path of least resistance BUT ONLY if you're not making yourself 100% reliant on it. If Microsoft or Google decides they hate you tomorrow, you should still have a business continuity plan. If systems have standby nodes, why not have a basic alternative standby system, or the ability to stand up a Nextcloud instance when needed for example (or the knowledge and training on how to do that)? If people had govt. services before computers being widespread and you can have people processing a bunch of paper forms, then surely if push comes to shove it'd be possible to standup a basic replacement for whatever gets borked while ignoring all of the accidental complexity (even if it'd mean e-mailing PDFs for a while). Unless someone builds their national tax system or ID system on a foreign cloud, then they are absolutely fucked.

          • By subscribed 2026-01-2518:381 reply

            I don't think it's easy to replace ENTRA feature-wise with European provider.

            Or github if you're using a bit more than self-hosted gitlab can provide.

            It's not always about the location, it's usually about features (how it integrates into other hardware/software) rarely prices.

            For example, can you suggest firewalls for offices that aren't either American or Israeli? We'd need something to replace Palo Alto, Bluecoat, Fortigate and Juniper. Also it'd be good to replace Cisco VPNs to be honest.

            But it kind of must be feature parity, because (European) regulators hold our balls over hot coals.

      • By zabzonk 2026-01-253:331 reply

        EMP attack

  • By wolvoleo 2026-01-2423:5011 reply

    In Holland I see a lot of defeatist attitude. "US big tech is so entrenched we'll never get away". "European cloud will never be good enough". "There's nothing like Microsoft 365". At my work they don't even want to think about alternatives.

    I think they hope that MAGA will just blow over somehow. I don't see that happening.

    • By tchalla 2026-01-250:303 reply

      Everyone has been going gung ho about Canadian PM speech but the banger one for me personally is the Belgian PM. He said it best “Being a happy vassal state is one thing, being a miserable slave is another”. Europe deserves every bit what’s coming to them.

      • By trinsic2 2026-01-251:312 reply

        Also the Canadian MP is involved in deploying surveillance[0] on his own country so I am not sure why people are giving him props. He is part of the problem.

        [0]: https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/story/72859/carneys-new...

        People need to stop buying into propaganda.

        • By ffsm8 2026-01-256:051 reply

          Surveillance is a different issue to the one he talked about, which is geopolitical and international instead of domestic (surveillance).

          all nations around the world are currently increasing their surveillance capability... And it's worth keeping in mind that at least some of us see that as an issue, that's actually not a broadly accepted fact. There are a lot of people that don't see an issue with it.

          And you'll be able to find a topic you disagree with with all politicians, if you discredit everything they say afterwards, you're essentially left holding your ears closed to all dialog.

          • By trinsic2 2026-01-262:43

            No. Surveillance is exactly the main issue that is surrounding all of this scaling up abuse of governance locally and globally.

            A man that is in directly involved in surveilling his own people does not have a leg to stand on in the Geo political arena. And to think otherwise is a massive mistake. Stop propping up people that do deserve it.

          • By trinsic2 2026-01-262:451 reply

            Surveillance underlines this issue so no its not the same. Why would anybody listen to a known bad actor, its directly related to the problem

            • By yencabulator 2026-01-263:48

              It's about a lot more than surveillance. It's about sovereignty, continuity of government, resisting sabotage, countering influence programs, and so on.

      • By OKRainbowKid 2026-01-250:391 reply

        Can you elaborate how this statement led you to your conclusion?

        • By tchalla 2026-01-250:497 reply

          I don’t understand your question. I’m assuming you are asking about the part “Europe deserves”. It’s simple really - for decades now Europe has been relying on US for military support. It’s a cardinal sin to do so if one wants an equivalent seat at the negotiating table. But the EU just can’t agree amongst themselves. Mercosur takes 30 years, India defence agreement has taken 20. The warning signs were there during 2016 but conveniently brushed. EU either acts together for the common good even if they don’t like something or continues to be bureaucratic, irrelevant old person. It’s slow agony at the moment.

          • By rtsil 2026-01-251:051 reply

            The EU couldn't agree amongst themselves because the US (and its biggest vassal, the UK when it was in the EU) did everything to prevent such agreement.

            We'll see what the States that were the most against any form of common European defense will do now that the US has proven unreliable. And if they are still under the delusion that the current US policies will go away, then it's time for Two-Speed Europe.

            • By terminalshort 2026-01-251:08

              Don't blame this on the UK. UK leave vote was a few months before the 2016 election, so the timing is convenient. But let's not pretend that it was anything but complacency (that was shattered by Trump) is to blame here.

          • By Gud 2026-01-256:531 reply

            I disagree, Europe has not been ”relying” on US military support.

            It is true that most(not all, for example Switzerland, Finland Poland all have excellent militaries) European countries have been underfunding their military in stark contrast to the war mongering nation across the Atlantic, but I would not call that “relying on”, just a delusion that we lived in an eternal peace.

            FWIW I served my country Sweden for three years, including a tour in Kosovo and another in Afghanistan. I have been against this recklessness for as long as I can remember.

            Also, the EU is hardly irrelevant, stop the hyperbole…

            It is subtle, but different

            • By number6 2026-01-257:16

              Thank you for your service

          • By surgical_fire 2026-01-2511:28

            > But the EU just can’t agree amongst themselves.

            Because "the EU" is not a country. It is a bloc. People that speak lf EU here are very delusional about what it is, and seemingly never understand its function.

            People speak of the EU as if it was going to be as nimble as a unified country with a single government structure. It is not. It is a bloc composed of 27 countries each with its own government structure, interests, budgets, industries, culture, and so on.

            Also - defense. The EU has no army. Each of its 27 countries have their own separated armies, and make their own decisions.

            In a post WW2 scenario, where most of Europe needed to rebuild, outsourcing defense to an ally was a correct decision (especially considering that escalating power in the preceeding decades only led to war).

            Perhaps the current state of affairs lead to a more federalized EU, who knows.

          • By petre 2026-01-256:12

            This stuff goes back to Yalta, so just forget parotting these ideas. The US never wanted Europe to be self reliant concerning security, up until Trump and the Paypal mafia. Fortunately De Gaulle gave the Americans the finger during his presidency because he knew better. Not being on the losing side meant that Framce wasn't under US "protection" and could develop their own nuclear program and military hardware, as opposed to Germany (and Japan).

          • By watwut 2026-01-257:491 reply

            USA got military support from Europe. Not vice versa.

            USA is pure aggressor here. USA becomming fascist is not fault of Europe, so no, Europe does not deserve to be attacked by USA.

            USA asked Europe for help, got it, used it for own benefit and then attacks Europe with lies and threats.

            • By polotics 2026-01-2512:171 reply

              Please do not mix up the mention of the USA with your view on the current administration, and also your view of the many silent servicemember who will have strong opinions about a few things.

              • By wolvoleo 2026-01-2520:041 reply

                If they're so opposed to it, why are they so silent?

                • By polotics 2026-01-267:07

                  their job is the opposite of making noise, and they are extremely aware of the value of being economical with ordnance

          • By stefan_ 2026-01-251:401 reply

            You are just swallowing the Trump line whole. Try being a hegemon without Ramstein and all the other bases.

            • By 627467 2026-01-253:26

              > try being a hegemon without...

              The hypothetical should really be on the vassal or it is just rethorics.

              This is the time to call each other bluffs and keep revealing the naked emperors

      • By tmtvl 2026-01-2510:50

        Here in Belgium voting is mandatory, so the clowns we have are who the public decided were the best candidates. The only excuse we can make is that single-vote list-PR is worse than ranked voting.

    • By Spivak 2026-01-250:075 reply

      Genuinely, what's the sell of Microsoft 365? I get MS Word, Excel whatever lock in but what is their cloud actually adding that can't be substituted?

      Email, chat, video calling, and file storage? All products that have plenty of competitors. We went with 365 only because it was dirt cheap.

      I would think weening off Windows and the AD "Entra" stack would be a lot harder than commodity office software but at least they can self host that.

      • By Sharlin 2026-01-250:141 reply

        It's adding the property that it's an all-in-one turnkey solution. Which is an extremely attractive proposition compared to having a dozen separate tools. And to paraphrase the old adage, nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

        • By kaveh_h 2026-01-250:511 reply

          Well maybe the old adage need to change

          • By EgregiousCube 2026-01-252:26

            He did change it when paraphrasing, just now :-)

            I'm sure it'll be paraphrased to another company in another 30 years.

      • By briHass 2026-01-251:431 reply

        M365 (the business plans) are an insane value, with zero competition. Remote management of devices, zero-touch provisioning of new hardware, full security suite, etc.

        There's nothing OSS or commercial that even comes close, especially for the price.

        I'm sure the average small business doesn't even use half of the functionality, but it's all there when they want to get serious about security/administration, or it can be outsourced to turnkey MSPs.

        • By fragmede 2026-01-251:491 reply

          > with zero competition

          Google Workspace with Chromebooks. No windows endpoints getting a virus or ransomware or some other malware. It's all about the bubble you're in. Mine, windows isn't even needed anymore for games because SteamOS is sufficiently there for the games we play.

          • By jemmyw 2026-01-252:021 reply

            Not helping with your US/big tech dependence though

            • By mjevans 2026-01-252:151 reply

              It's roughly the same price (or even more expensive) and doesn't include Outlook... which is THE crack application for all those windows addicts.

              You could absolutely nail the document compatibility aspect and it still wouldn't be enough because of freaking Outlook.

              • By ccakes 2026-01-254:481 reply

                10 years ago I would have agreed with you but these days.. Outlook has been crapped on so much that Google Workspaces are competitive imo

                • By wolvoleo 2026-01-2510:25

                  Agreed, the 'new' outlook destroyed everything that was good about outlook. Which wasn't even all that good by the way, it was just the best but that says more about the competition than about outlook itself.

      • By esperent 2026-01-250:231 reply

        > what's the sell of Microsoft 365

        > We went with 365 only because it was dirt cheap

        You answered your own question.

        • By Spivak 2026-01-2517:18

          Look I get that, but the parent was talking about there being just no alternative to 365 when it seems like nearly every product in the suite has plenty of competitors.

          It does seem like you can put your money where your mouth is in this case. You can now put a literal dollar value on how much you actually care about being tied to US tech. And it's like $20-40/user/month. Which isn't nothing but it's not untenable amounts of money.

      • By skocznymroczny 2026-01-250:304 reply

        The sell is that my manager can send an Excel spreadsheet to everyone and everyone can open the spreadsheet and edit it at the same times while seeing everyone else do their edits. What's the non-MS non-Google solution to this?

        • By mjhay 2026-01-250:36

          Anyone can edit it and it also might get randomly corrupted. It’s crap, especially if some people are on Macs.

        • By saguntum 2026-01-253:56

          I haven't used any but there are several it seems: https://european-alternatives.eu/alternative-to/google-docs

          NextCloud looks ok.

          For some reason I thought it was open to the public, but France also maintains a full sovereign cloud office suite for use by civil servants: https://lasuite.numerique.gouv.fr/en

          Maybe one day they'll open it up publicly.

        • By Telaneo 2026-01-250:43

          Open-Xchange supports collaborative editing of spreadsheets. Mailbox.org uses that for their email service, and you get access to their online office suite when you subscribe. I can't speak to the quality of the shared editing, but their online office suite is fine for basic stuff.

        • By Hikikomori 2026-01-250:48

          Zoho.

      • By Yoric 2026-01-250:113 reply

        And frankly, MS Word is really bad. So are pretty much of all their services.

        Not sure whether Excel is still good.

        • By Telaneo 2026-01-250:282 reply

          Excel is really good for the wizards and for that one spreadsheet full of macros written by a wizard, which thus can't be ported over to Libreoffice or anything else. Many of those probably should Just™ be made into actual databases, but Excel is a lot more approachable than those, so you end up with giant spreadsheets instead.

          For everybody else, Libreoffice is fine as far as functionality is concerned. UI might be another story, but that's worth getting over anyway, especially since a lot of people for whom this is a problem, would also have problems with getting away from Windows as a whole, just from buttons moving and things being different in general.

          • By wolvoleo 2026-01-2510:291 reply

            > Excel is really good for the wizards and for that one spreadsheet full of macros written by a wizard, which thus can't be ported over to Libreoffice or anything else. Many of those probably should Just™ be made into actual databases, but Excel is a lot more approachable than those, so you end up with giant spreadsheets instead.

            Yes!! Misusing Excel as a database is really part of the problem. It also causes so many issues. Having multiple data elements within one cell. Someone overtyping a formula in a column of 200.000 values leading to one cell no longer being updated. Needing 32GB of RAM just to edit a spreadsheet with a measly 500.000 rows.

            All stuff that never would happen with a real database. Microsoft never really put much effort into making Access approachable.

            • By iberator 2026-01-2517:32

              You could do this in Pandas with Python under like 400mb of ram

          • By astrospective 2026-01-250:521 reply

            Porting involved Excel sheets into web apps has been a decent chunk of my dev career.

            • By mmooss 2026-01-253:001 reply

              What works best in those situations, in your experience?

              Do you recreate a spreadsheet, use an existing online service, and/or create a database with proper logic, etc.? If the latter, how do users handle the UI change, and can they have an ease of creation similar to what Excel provides?

              • By midoBB 2026-01-259:31

                In my experience it's mostly about understanding business requirements of people using said excel sheets and then replicating it to CRUD WebApps while keeping capabilities of importing said sheets and exporting them so user flows are unharmed till a wholesale transition is mandated.

                Good source of money for contractors as OP said.

        • By terminalshort 2026-01-251:111 reply

          Bad how? Works just fine for everything I have ever needed to do with it. I'm not a power user, though, but my point is neither are 95% of users and the basic functionality is just fine.

          • By Yoric 2026-01-258:50

            I find the UI clunky and a clear regression from older versions.

            A family member has recently written a book on the latest version of MS Word. It's not their first book written with MS Word. It's also not the first time I give a hand to make sure that typography matches publisher requirements. I find that using style sheets has become more complicated, more limited and better hidden with successive versions of MS Word.

            Contrast with Apple Pages, in which style sheets are so well integrated in the UI that you barely need to think when you create a new rule.

            In fact, I find that even LibreOffice is much better at style sheets these days.

            I remember the (not necessarily good) old days when I used MS Word to create character sheets for my tabletop RPGs, or in-game newspapers, etc. These days, I would hate doing this with MS Word – and not just because I'm an open-source aficionado.

        • By hmry 2026-01-250:231 reply

          Being good is one thing, being compatible with existing files full of VBA macros is another.

          Although MS themselves apparently don't realize that, considering how they push the web version which doesn't support them?

          • By Yoric 2026-01-258:511 reply

            Oh, the web version doesn't support them? I hadn't realized that.

            • By wolvoleo 2026-01-2510:31

              It doesn't even support many basic functions of the office apps.

              MS was working hard on creating feature parity but at some point they just dropped everything and gave up.

    • By SpicyLemonZest 2026-01-251:025 reply

      I think you're misreading the source of the defeatism. It's clear what European leaders should do if they want to compete with US big tech. They should sit down with corporate leaders at Spotify, Ericsson, ASML, etc. and talk though what reforms are necessary for Europe to start minting unicorns as rapidly as the Americans can.

      But European leaders haven't been willing to do this, perceiving (I think correctly) that European citizens won't tolerate the idea of asking rich CEOs for regulatory advice or making the creation of billionaires a policy goal. So instead they focus on the kind of pointless efforts described in the source article, where government agencies endlessly chase their tails on standards and objectives.

      To the eternal frustration of governments and advocates around the world, there's no argument for why you should use domestic products that can adequately substitute for high-quality domestic products people want to use.

      • By smsm42 2026-01-251:552 reply

        If Europe were capable of doing this, Europe would not need to do this. They'd already have active and vibrant tech scene compared to US one - EU is bigger than US by population, and certainly not less smart - in fact, a lot of people live in EU and work for US tech companies. So why US has "big tech" and Europe does not? They decided their political model must work differently, even at the cost of not having big tech. So now they don't have big tech. And no amount of committee meetings is going to change that, even if all governments would want it really, really hard.

        • By dns_snek 2026-01-2514:422 reply

          > So why US has "big tech" and Europe does not?

          Because having "big tech" is a sign that the government has completely failed to enforce anti-trust laws and allowed dangerous concentration of power to occur. It's a symptom of a disease not some desirable goal.

          The EU doesn't need or want "big tech", it just needs "tech". It needs generous public funding for infrastructure, open source, and it should aim to build upon open standards whenever possible.

          We don't need domestic monopolies that are just going to fuck us in the same way that US corporations fuck Americans while we all pretend to enjoy it for the sake of looking superior to the other camp.

          • By smsm42 2026-01-265:42

            > The EU doesn't need or want "big tech", it just needs "tech".

            Why doesn't it already have "tech" and has to resort to governmental action to procure one? I mean, it is obviously very easy to acquire just "tech" without government completely failing to enforce laws and population being fucked by corporations, and it is a testament to how dumb Americans really are that they failed to do that. But Europeans are not dumb, so why they didn't do it by now? Why we are discussing the matter now instead of just pointing to clearly superior open-standard non-fucking European "just tech" as a superior alternative to American "big tech"?

          • By sunshine-o 2026-01-2515:461 reply

            Let's not forget Big tech is also fueled by the rest of the world and Europe.

            If you walk into a bank in Europe and have some money to invest they will sell you mostly debt and the "Magnificent Seven" or a funds with those stocks inside.

            The EU is ridiculous when it says it want to built an alternative because it's entire financial/banking system end up fueling the saving of its citizen into those companies.

            This is also why we end up in that absurd situation where the Mag 7 make up 1/3 of the S&P 500 market cap.

            If the EU is serious about offering an alternative (which I doubt) it needs to offer a sustainable path for its people to invest in it. Not do another fake program where insiders will grab some public money and get nowhere (it has been tried for 25 years).

            • By smsm42 2026-01-265:45

              > If the EU is serious about offering an alternative (which I doubt) it needs to offer a sustainable path for its people to invest in it.

              Did US government do something like that? If US has some attractive investments and EU does not, why don't they? I mean, EU citizens would probably like to invest in EU companies, much better than in US companies, they are not some self-haters to refuse a good investment just because it's in EU, right? So why don't they invest there? Why do they invest in US instead and there is a need in a special action - not taken prior to now - to enable them to invest in the EU?

        • By sarchertech 2026-01-253:441 reply

          It’s not really comparable though. The EU isn’t a unified single language market, and its GDP and per capita GDP are much smaller.

          • By smsm42 2026-01-253:502 reply

            Language is not a huge deal - if the French and the Spanish and the Dutch can use Facebook, they could use Eurobook if that existed, as well. The problem of course would be, if they made a committee to build Eurobook, they'd spend 5 years in meetings to ensure every country and every language is absolutely equally represented and then would build something that no speaker of any language would use.

            As for GDP, EU overall GDP is only slightly less than US GDP, so it could very well sustain the industry of comparable size. Per capita GDP is indeed lower, but I'm not sure how that precludes creation of something like Eurobook.

            • By sarchertech 2026-01-2510:38

              EU GDP is about 2/3 US GDP. That’s a very significant difference. Per capita income is probably less important than average and median disposable income, which is much higher in the US and has an obvious impact on B2C companies.

              FB was incubated in a single unified market before it really spread to the EU. It’s harder for companies to take off and reach tech giant reach with the much smaller individual markets in the EU.

              It’s much harder to build a product that appeals to everyone from the Irish to the Bulgarians, and to advertise to them than it is to do the same for everyone in the US. And it’s not just the tech companies, the individual content creators on the platform have the same comparative problems.

            • By com 2026-01-259:05

              There were Eurobooks and they were pretty well bought out by Facebook. Hyves and so on. The online CV networks were bought by LinkedIn.

      • By api 2026-01-251:151 reply

        The answer is simple: simplify and streamline all the bureaucracy.

        Complexity is a regressive tax. It disproportionately penalizes small ventures and entrepreneurs who don’t have whole departments of people to deal with it. The effect is to prevent the formation of new companies. Large incumbents are able to deal with it, so it actually protects them.

        • By f30e3dfed1c9 2026-01-259:031 reply

          "The answer is simple: simplify and streamline all the bureaucracy."

          Well, that sounds easy! I wonder why no one else ever thought of it. Good thing there are geniuses like you around.

          • By api 2026-01-2514:40

            People think of it all the time. But there’s a giant system full of people whose careers and incomes are linked to the complexity, not just government bureaucrats but also lawyers, accounting firms, expensive consultancies, etc. It’s a hard sell because it would decimate whole industries that revolving around servicing the complexity.

            But it’s one of the thing the EU could do to win in new industries.

            Honestly if the EU became more innovation and entrepreneur friendly I think they’d kick America’s ass. Tons of smart people, and the positive side of the social safely net is that it derisks entrepreneurship. America is full of would be founders who can’t afford to take the leap since they could lose their health care, etc.

      • By mmooss 2026-01-253:051 reply

        > making the creation of billionaires a policy goal

        Concentrating wealth to the degree of the US is not at all necessary for innovation. As an extreme example, Bezos would have done the same thing for a tenth or less of the current lifetime income.

        In fact, when many leading entrepeneurs started, the wealth concentration wasn't nearly as high, yet they were still motivated. Now with wealth concentration much higher, my impression is less motivation and opportunity for startups, innovation, starting a business in your garage, etc. In more economic terms, I think it's well-established that such high concentration of wealth reduces economic mobility.

        • By SpicyLemonZest 2026-01-254:221 reply

          The causation is in the other direction. Innovative entrepreneurs cause wealth to become highly concentrated, and cause their companies to distort the societies they're embedded in, by the act of producing goods and services that a large number of people want to buy.

          Bezos is actually a great example, because he made almost his entire US$250B fortune from unrealized stock appreciation rather than salary or new awards. Even the most extreme wealth tax proposals I've seen wouldn't get him down to US$25B. The US could only have achieved that target by restricting how much Amazon is allowed to innovate and grow.

          • By IrishTechie 2026-01-258:55

            I disagree. They could for example make it mandatory to grant more stock options to employees so the wealth they are generating is more broadly spread beyond the founder/CEO. I’m sure there are plenty of other approaches that would still handsomely reward innovation and growth but prevent where we ended up today.

      • By Intralexical 2026-01-252:421 reply

        > They should sit down with corporate leaders at Spotify, Ericsson, ASML, etc. and talk though what reforms are necessary for Europe to start minting unicorns as rapidly as the Americans can.

        The EU should ask established incumbents how to best create lots of new upstarts, some of which will no doubt end up competing with them or disrupting their business models?

        • By SpicyLemonZest 2026-01-254:35

          Yes. They shouldn't take their words as gospel, of course, they'd want to find some current upstarts as well. But the idea that successful businesspeople are just snatching pieces of the pie and have nothing useful to say is exactly the attitude that's incompatible with an innovative tech sector.

      • By wolvoleo 2026-01-2510:32

        No, the last thing we should do is transform Europe into a neoliberal stronghold like America. It's not all about making money. It's about creating a civilisation for citizens, not business. Business is just a means to an end.

        The current polarisation in America is a direct result of billionaires controlling policy, and the anger of a huge disadvantaged minority being taken advantage of by populists (which ironically are mostly oligarchs)

    • By qmmmur 2026-01-252:331 reply

      I would hedge most businesses don’t need the full offering of 365. You could get away with an email provider, a way to author documents and some file storage which are abundantly offered on other platforms like infomaniak.

      • By tjwebbnorfolk 2026-01-253:10

        They might not need it if they started today. But once you have a few hundred TBs of data in Sharepoint, you've foreclosed any alternatives.

    • By Telaneo 2026-01-250:32

      I'd imagine this attitude would start to disappear as soon as alternatives start being used. It's already happening to some extent, but it needs to trickle down into the general populace. The relevant names just aren't in people's minds yet (although there definitely are areas where there aren't exact 1-to-1 replacements available).

    • By gerdesj 2026-01-251:251 reply

      "In Holland I see a lot of defeatist attitude."

      I gather that the Dutch government sponsor OpenVPN development and frankly I've generally viewed the Netherlands as a whole as being rather independently minded. You might recall that a few Dutch frigates managed to sail up an English river (the Medway) in Kent and cause havoc back in the day. However we all speak a Germanic language of one sort or another!

      I remember "Evoluon" in Eindhoven. I lived in West Germany in the '70s and '80s and Eindhoven was a fairly short drive away. That thing was absolutely amazing. I graduated as a Civil Engineer in '91 so I have an idea about how impressive the flying saucer on stilts was as a structure.

      I'm a Brit and I find myself writing a love letter to the Neths!

      Anyway, the MS365 thing is entrenched all over. I'm the managing director of my own company and I found myself migrating my email system to M365 from Exchange on prem and years ago from GroupWise. However, our MX records are on site and I still rock Exim and rspamd. If MS goes down I still have our inbound email in the queue and can read them. Our uptime is way better than MS's. I also have a Dovecot IMAPD for mailboxes that should stay local.

      • By wolvoleo 2026-01-2510:12

        > I gather that the Dutch government sponsor OpenVPN development and frankly I've generally viewed the Netherlands as a whole as being rather independently minded. You might recall that a few Dutch frigates managed to sail up an English river (the Medway) in Kent and cause havoc back in the day. However we all speak a Germanic language of one sort or another!

        The Dutch tax office is currently busy migrating to M365. They had their own functioning solution up until now. Geopolitically this is the worst time to create dependencies.

        And yeah the evoluon is cool but that was in a completely different age. All the innovation was shipped to China in the 2000s. Philips that made the evoluon was stripped and sold for parts, the only successful part remaining is ASML but that's a unicorn.

        Holland these days is governed by the neoliberals and has been for 30 years, and they want to turn the country into another America. It's the most neoliberal country left in the EU since the UK left.

    • By ummonk 2026-01-250:511 reply

      It’s amazing how complacent and weak-willed the European populace and political leaders are. Quite the contrast to Canada.

      • By trinsic2 2026-01-251:34

        What the hell are you talking about? Canada is in a pretty bad state themselves, just as much as we are in the U.S.

    • By bell-cot 2026-01-258:561 reply

      Back when the danger was natural and physical - how much defeatism was there in Holland about building the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works ?

      Why the difference?

      • By wolvoleo 2026-01-2510:45

        Those were different times. Right now Holland has been governed by oligarchs for the last 30 years. The country is unrecognisable.

        Also, making something like that would be unthinkable in this day and age of safety and environmental red tape. The same way we have not reclaimed any land in like forever. In fact some of it has been sunk again under pressure from the belgians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertogin_Hedwigepolder

    • By PontifexMinimus 2026-01-251:46

      > In Holland I see a lot of defeatist attitude

      The naysayer defeatist attitude is also very strong in the UK.

    • By petre 2026-01-256:04

      Just wait until he asks for total control of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten.

    • By lateforwork 2026-01-2423:584 reply

      Even if MAGA goes away in 3 years when Trump (hopefully) goes away, the US will remain an oligarchy. Billionaire's interests comes before citizens' interests. This is because of a supreme court decision that allowed billionaires to buy elections. For this reason, even though I am American, I'd like to see European alternatives to US apps and services, because they are more likely to serve my interests.

      • By okanat 2026-01-250:471 reply

        The big picture isn't that different in Europe. Most EU countries are also oligarchies, just with a lot more bloody histories and national traumas. The social safety net is kept to the level of remembrance of those traumas. Once people start forgetting them, the oligarchs will take away the rights one by one.

        The response to US betrayal is weak because our oligarchs own lots and lots of investments in the US. Our banks invest in US treasuries and especially in the US real estate market. They then leverage those US investments against normal people in the EU and consolidate more and more power (and assets) and blame normal people for not having investments or not working enough. They are the ones who take away EU GDP and park it in US investment tools. Forming businesses is more risky in many EU countries due to extremely conservative policies of those same banks who prefer US investments instead.

        • By mmooss 2026-01-253:381 reply

          I think that's overwhelmingly false. Wealth concentration isn't nearly as high in Europe.

          • By bethekidyouwant 2026-01-253:55

            Wealth concentration doesn’t make his point false at all

      • By terminalshort 2026-01-251:174 reply

        This is a tired old trope that really has no basis in reality. There have been no large scale policy changes favoring billionaires since the campaign finance laws changed. In two out of the last 3 elections, the major corporate money backed candidate lost. The government is run by the 24 hour news cycle and the attention economy, not by the decree of billionaires. We operate firmly under the tyranny of the majority.

        • By Esophagus4 2026-01-253:071 reply

          > There have been no large scale policy changes favoring billionaires since the campaign finance laws changed

          Just for anyone else reading this comment, it’s pretty wildly incorrect.

          https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61387

          https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/business/trump-administra...

          • By terminalshort 2026-01-253:191 reply

            From your own link:

            > CBO estimates that as result of P.L. 119-21, U.S. households, on average, will see an increase in the resources available to them over the 2026– 2034 period. The changes in resources will not be evenly distributed among households. The agency estimates that, in general, resources will decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources will increase for households in the middle and toward the top of the income distribution.

            That's hardly a picture of billionaires pulling the strings

            • By Esophagus4 2026-01-253:491 reply

              Going down with this ship, huh?

              Care to quote the second one? The one whose byline is “Trump giving hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the ultra wealthy”?

              Or will you dismiss that too because it doesn’t explicitly say billionaires?

              • By terminalshort 2026-01-254:46

                Of course I quoted the CBO instead of some attention grabbing drivel from journalists. Of course tax cuts "give hundreds of billions" to the ultra wealthy because that's who pays all the taxes. It isn't evidence of your childish conspiracy theory that we are all governed by a cabal of billionaires buying elections.

        • By mmooss 2026-01-253:35

          We could argue that there didn't need to be change, because favoring the wealthy was already the policy: Wealth concentration was already at historic highs. Taxes were already very low, including capital gains tax (the primary source of income for the very wealthy - return on capital is the primary income of capitalists), social safety net relatively underfunded including widespread lack of health care, social and economic mobility dropping, access to higher education relied primarily on family wealth and not grades, access to housing dropping, etc. State governments brag about no income tax, which means they rely on regressive taxes to pay for the common good.

          Regardless, I think the parent comment facts are wrong and there there have been massive changes benefitting the wealthy: There have been massive tax cuts for them, reduction in enforcement of financial laws (e.g., by the SEC, etc.), lagging financial regulation of private equity, destruction of consumer protection (such as the CFPB), massive changes in policy and action to benefit the fossil fuel industry including use of the US military, ... there was a big tax law change to benefit SV founders that was advocated here on HN, protectionist measures increasing prices for consumers and giving the benefits to corporations, etc.

        • By lateforwork 2026-01-251:243 reply

          > the major corporate money backed candidate lost

          Elon Musk spent $290 million to elect Trump. Are you saying that had no impact? How do you know this?

          • By tjwebbnorfolk 2026-01-253:121 reply

            It's widely reported that the democrats spent over twice as much money as Trump. Both parties have their share of big donors, this isn't new, nor is it specific to Elon. It's been this way a long, long time.

            • By mmooss 2026-01-253:371 reply

              Are those shares equal? It's true that both parties got votes in every state, but that doesn't tell use much.

              • By tjwebbnorfolk 2026-01-2519:24

                Ok at this point I don't know what you're talking about anymore.

          • By anonymousiam 2026-01-2517:45

            Zukerberg spent almost twice that much to get Biden elected.

            https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/118th-congress/hou...

          • By terminalshort 2026-01-251:311 reply

            Both sides have their supporters. Everyone knows that. I'm not going to take your bait to prove a negative. In both 2016 and 2024 Trump raised less money than his opponent (massively less in 2016) and still won.

        • By mrtesthah 2026-01-251:491 reply

          Citizens United is precisely why we have a majority of politicians following the will of the donor class rather than a majority of actual voters. It’s why we lack universal healthcare, for example, despite 62% of Americans supporting it a year ago, with a similar number supporting raising the minimum wage.

          https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

          Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

          Regarding the last national election:

          https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fift...

          The Court’s decision and others that followed shaped the 2024 election to a greater degree than any that came before it. Most notably, Donald Trump substantially trailed Kamala Harris in traditional campaign donations, which are subject to legal limits and must be disclosed. Yet he was able to compensate for this disadvantage by outsourcing much of his campaign to super PACs and other outside groups funded by a handful of wealthy donors. While such groups had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on ads in previous cycles, this was the first time they successfully took on many of the other core functions of a general election presidential campaign, such as door-to-door canvassing and get-out-the-vote efforts. Their activities unquestionably would have been illegal before Citizens United.

          • By terminalshort 2026-01-252:001 reply

            We didn't have universal health care before CU either. It wasn't included in the ACA, before CU. It failed when Clinton tried in the 90s, and it failed every other time anyone tried before that too. You are just using Citizens United as a bogey man for a policy you don't like. You can complain about Trump all you like, but Harris didn't have much less dark money than he did. And Clinton / Biden had double what Trump did in 2016 and 2020. https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

            • By mrtesthah 2026-01-256:141 reply

              Universal health care wasn't as popular back then as it is now, so that's to be expected:

              https://news.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx

              This isn't about who wins campaigns -- this is about who influences the issues they campaign on. Since the Citizens United decision politicians have had to switch to the Super PAC model to be competitive, which gives drastically more power to dark money donors. And unsurprisingly, as cited in that study, the influence of average citizens on politics has been completely surpassed by businesses and economic elites:

              https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

              • By terminalshort 2026-01-2515:04

                2000 - 64% 2025 - 64%

                Doesn't matter anyway because the poll doesn't mean shit. Most people are idiots and will answer the poll completely differently if you actually give them a realistic question like "would you accept a major tax increase to get universal healthcare?"

      • By Archelaos 2026-01-251:011 reply

        The problem are not Trump or the billionaires, but the majority of the American people who support them. They knew what they were getting.

        • By lateforwork 2026-01-251:172 reply

          No they didn't know what they were getting. They didn't and can't look beyond the price of eggs at their local Kroger. To a large extend this election was decided by the price of eggs.

          • By trhway 2026-01-251:36

            "The price of eggs" was direct result of the screwed response to the pandemics, all that panicked senseless running around like beheaded chickens and the total dismissal of reality.

            Populists come to power when the ruling elites bankrupt by corruption and ineptitude the trust that the populace had had in them.

          • By mrtesthah 2026-01-251:35

            A permanent cult-following minority does want a white christian nationalist dictatorship.

            Everyone else are low information voters.

            https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/01/trump-roles-sup...

      • By Hikikomori 2026-01-250:52

        It likely isn't over with him. Trump is just the frontman and possibly fall guy for project 2025/federalist society. They are his entire cabinet and their plan was to replace all government workers with their own loyal people.

  • By apatheticonion 2026-01-253:222 reply

    Then invest in and attract people to build it. I'd move to Europe if the salary was competitive.

    IMO start by funding the living crap out of open source projects. Mandate that hardware sold in the EU comes with unlocked bootloaders and documentation sufficient to develop drivers from.

    Relax IP protections so developers are allowed to reverse engineer products and build derivative works from them (extending the life of, facilitating compatibility).

    Ban security systems used by big companies that enforce OS conformity (like kernel based anti-cheat, or banks disabling tap-to-pay on phones running beta android/rooted).

    Double down on platform interoperability - e.g. Allow me to write a chat app that uses Facebook messenger as a back end.

    Hey-ho there you go, European competitors to Android/iOS will pop up overnight. Asahi Linux and other OSes will get a shot in the arm (ha).

    • By workfromspace 2026-01-2510:442 reply

      > Then invest in and attract people to build it. I'd move to Europe if the salary was competitive.

      True that. Also in many countries in Europe, IT jobs are not "special" anymore and salaries are similar to the median.

      • By apatheticonion 2026-01-260:42

        There's no profit in technology so there's no interest in starting a business leading to low demand for workers.

        Stimulate the sector directly through investment and indirectly by enabling competition and the demand for jobs will increase - following with it salaries.

        Cash injection isn't enough though, if you don't break down monopolistic barriers, businesses will fail regardless

      • By karussell 2026-01-2519:05

        Isn't the salary difference more about differences between Silicon Valley (or Big tech in US) and Europe?

        One competitive advantage of the US is probably that often equity is involved (although this can be a disadvantage too if it replaces money and doesn't come on top).

        Also don't forget that in Europe you often have a better safety net (especially if you loose a job) and lower rent.

    • By bethekidyouwant 2026-01-253:391 reply

      Yes, what europe needs is way more regulation

      • By apatheticonion 2026-01-254:141 reply

        I'm talking about provisions to increase competition in the free market - not classical "corporations bad" regulations.

        Companies like Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon and Microsoft thrive off competition barriers.

        For example;

        Why is Asahi Linux on the MacBook not daily drivable? Because we can't write drivers and require non-scalable geniuses to reverse engineer hardware from photos of circuit boards.

        Why can't you install an alternative to Android or iOS on your phone? Because we can't write drivers and/or the hardware blocks you from even trying.

        Preventing monopolies from ring-fencing empowers the free market through competition enablement. Ultimately, it's impractical to tell us non Americans that you need to build a hardware and software stack entirely from scratch and have that be competitive within a few years.

        Without those barriers - perhaps the EU would have a homegrown mobile operating system. Perhaps Linux desktop adoption would be bostered enough to justify further investment in OSS initiatives.

        • By bethekidyouwant 2026-01-2515:032 reply

          Your android phone is made by Koreans.

          • By apatheticonion 2026-01-260:38

            Yes, anti competitive practices are good for business regardless of geography.

            Americans may be the biggest offenders but the pro-competition rules should apply to all.

            Personally, I have the skills and interest to write a custom OS for my phone (Linux, custom DE, and waydroid for Android compat) - but it's literally impossible to due to anti competitive practices (I can't reverse engineer drivers and clean room driver development is practically impossible).

            Similar story for my router, my "smart" TV and arm64 MacBook pro (or even an arm64 surface laptop).

          • By type0 2026-01-2521:42

            My Android phone is made by Chinese and all the patents are held by Americans

HackerNews