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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> That assumes that all Americans support the actions of the current administration
This is making the mistake of trying to distinguish between what individual voters want and what the American government and large businesses do. If you’re, say, a Dane wondering if it’s safe to use Windows, iOS, or Chrome, you don’t care about a hundred million Democrats think but instead can only go by what you think the people in power will order and the odds that Satya, Sundar, or Tim will resist requests to compromise your interests. The number of people involved fit on a private jet.
> the mistake of trying to distinguish between what individual voters want and what the American government and large businesses do
That's not really a "mistake", though; that distinction exists and is important. I'd posit that the comment which reads "Americans are not an ally" should instead read "America is not an ally". The interpretation that they are talking about the American people is correct, from a literal reading. I suspect they intended to specify the American government ("America") rather than the American people ("Americans"), which makes the meaning more reasonable (IMO, of course). I agree with the rest of what you wrote; indeed, Satya, Sundar, and Tim both strongly influence and are strongly influenced by the government in question.
Sure, I was thinking mistake as in using “Americans” vaguely to refer to both three hundred million people or the much smaller number of people who make things people outside of the United States depend on. Neither one is wrong but it’s easy to think you’re talking about the same thing when you aren’t.
I think this will answer both comments, I said Americans and not America because *both* Democrats and Republicans would antagonize Europeans if they went to bat for their interests (using China as a counterpower to America, protecting industries and becoming as agressive as American administrations have been with protectionism, heavy brain drain, financial abuse and retorting to diminish EU power etc etc)
As a counter to what you say, that is true but in large most are ok with the current administration or the earlier ones. It was under Bush that there was a renaming of French fries to Freedom Fries as a backlash to Gerlany/France not joining the Iraq war.
Not every German was a nazi in WW2, yet if you fought a German you will not stop and give him a questionaire to understand his ideology. You lump them as heuristic and act on that.
That’s because our mass protests are focused on the overseas concentration camps, illegal detainment and arrests, and the other authoritarian moves our president has made. It’s true that Americans in general care little about foreign policy. It’s not an anti-Europe thing, it’s just that people care about stuff that more immediately affects them. European countries are smaller and more integrated, so foreign policy has a more immediate affect on them. Foreign policy has a dramatic affect on Americans lives, but it’s usually indirect and therefore not top of mind for the average citizen. That doesn’t mean we like our government’s foreign policy. And all that’s without mentioning that many believe the Greenland talk is not serious, and simply a distraction, and therefore mass protests would actually be playing into the admins hands.
Then you’re not paying attention. The US is currently experiencing the largest wave of mass protests in its history. The corporate media is simply ignoring it. Practically every trump administration action has triggered nation-wide protests.
Unless your government is entirely forced upon you, they're is only so far the populace can distance itself from them. The majority of the bad crap this American administration is doing and has done was predicted, heck a lot of it they effectively promised during & before the election, yet nearly two thirds of the population either directly voted for it or sat on their elbows and let it happen.
True. But I'm assuming over there is similar to over here wrt brexit and such: some of the loudest voices wailing “we didn't vote for that” are people who actively did vote for [whatever], or didn't vote at all.
I'm not seeing that. The Leopards Ate My Face people are amplified mostly by people who have not had their faces eaten by leopards, partly in mockery, partly in humor. The complainants don't have much of a voice (thankfully, I suspect).
I'm not sure how your math stacks out... but 2/3rds of 330 million people is not 75 million votes.
The fact is, the American electoral system is heavily stacked against the actual population due to...
- Citizens United allows individuals with sums of wealth which are nearly incomprehensible to literally drop hundreds of millions of dollars on a single election and not even have a dent in net worth
- The electoral college which may have made sense in 1796 or whenever they were deciding it means presidential elections focus on approximately 7 of our 50 states
- Many places like Puerto Rico, DC, the US Virgin Islands, and other territories just flat out don't have federal representation
- In the Senate small state citizens can sometimes wield up to 60 times as much representation as large state citizens (Hey guess which states those billionaires drop money to buy representation in... I'll give you a hint, it's not the populous ones)
- The House of Reps is capped in size which again hurts large states
It may be time to start talking about structural change here in the United States.
That being said... The United States and (most of) Europe have been allies for 8 decades, it's not like Europe hasn't had it's fair share of bullshit and far right parties.
The fact everyone in this thread is saying our relationship is done cause America's going through a rough patch is ridiculous. Especially given that a year ago our President was helping the expansion of NATO, and we're still sending arms to Ukraine (although the terms are differing), and we just took out Russian ally Maduro.
And I for one am happy that the outcome from this absolutely awful human being is increased European self reliance.
I'm hoping it shakes out that the US rebukes this awful party, and president (which many many people were duped into voting for cause most people are not paying as much attention as say... me and combine hundreds of millions from Musk, and misinformation flowing in through social media, and the stacked systems laid out above)
And when that's all said and done, and millions and millions of us are donating, and marching, and calling, and working to make that happen and there has been very real push back here, although slower than maybe some would hope
That then the US and Europe can be more equal partners than before this monster of an individual
> but 2/3rds of 330 million people is not 75 million votes
It was a remembered stat, and there were more than 75,000,000 who “either directly voted for it or sat on their elbows and let it happen”.
A quick check of official stats:
The turnout of 64.1% and 49.1%/49.3%/1.9% “of the vote” figures means:
~32% rep
~31% dem
~ 1% other
~36% did not vote
So 68% voted for it or sat on their elbows. Pretty close to my half-remembered two thirds.
> it's not like Europe hasn't had it's fair share of bullshit and far right parties.
True, and they are worryingly gaining ground in a number of places (here in the UK for one), but the whole EU (or Europe, or the EEA, depending on the exact set of countries we want to include in the pot for this discussion) has never been close to far-right in that time.
> That then the US and Europe can be more equal partners than before this monster of an individual
Eventually, hopefully. We'll see what happens in a couple of years. But the trust won't come back overnight even from where it is now, and there is plenty of time for the situation to get worse. I expect it will take a couple of terms at the very least for things to even out close to where they were before, if they ever do.
And for all the claims of “defending democracy and the free world”, the unilateral arseholery in general and active threats to other democracies (the EU overall, its individual states, and non-EU states), gives other regimes a loverly big mess to point at while asking “Do you really want democracy?”, so it might not even be possible for things to revert over that timescale because of the changes in balance elsewhere as less direct consequence.
The biggest problem here isn't the numbers, but the usual manipulative rhetoric of putting people who "voted for it" and those who "sat on their elbows" into the same bucket, to vilify them together.
I'll skip the philosophical argument for the absurdity of this view in general, because the numbers you provided speak even louder. Consider that both big parties got pretty much the same amount of votes[0] - so whether or not the 36% of population who didn't vote are seen as complicit villains, depended on how a different 0.5% of the population (or 0.15% of the voters) voted!
--
[0] - I'd argue that 0.2% difference is within margin of statistical error, but that's a whole other discussion.
> so whether or not the 36% of population who didn't vote are seen as complicit villains
Not complicit villains, it isn't as black and white as that, but those who don't engage and then complain are pretty close. After the brexit vote a number of people said things along the lines of “if I'd know it would matter, I'd have bothered”, which is something I find difficult to respond to in a polite manner.
Why not taking two seconds to look it up before making such a false statement? From Wikipedia:
> Citizens of Greenland are full citizens of Denmark and of the European Union. Greenland is one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union and is part of the Council of Europe.
There is confusion here because Greenland is not part of the EU directly (they were, they left) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_and_the_European_Uni...
Its citizens are members of the EU but its territory is not. Greenland is part of NATO though, and has a trade alliance with the EU so its territorial status is very complicated.
It's always disappointing to see that level of aggressive ignorance on HN. I flagged your comment because you're lying and spreading misinformation. Greenland is associated to the European Union but is is not and never has been part of the European Union; it was previously part of the predecessor organization the European Communities but withdrew before the EU was founded. Next time take two seconds to look it up.
I never said it was a full part of the EU, I even posted the quote from Wikipedia that specifies the situation. But saying that Greenland is not part of EU is also wrong. Even though it might not be a regular member state, it is a territory of Denmark, which is certainly part of the EU.
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?
... 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.
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.
European citizens under US sanctions are being erased economically and socially within the EU. This is not to mention the systemic dismantling of the ICC at an individual level. The US has sanctioned six ICC judges this year, along with the court’s chief prosecutor and two deputy prosecutors.
Prior to Trump, most of the ~15,000 individuals on the US sanctions list were members of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Mafia, or warlords and despot leaders of authoritarian regimes.
The state department justification relates either to their roles in the Afghanistan investigation or them facilitating the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity. As a result they now can't book a hotel, use credit cards or access everyday services. As Nicolas Guillou says 'You are effectively blacklisted by much of the world's banking system'
As the Le Monde article concludes, while it is the prerogative of the US government to exercise sovereignty on its own territory, it is unacceptable, however, that European citizens – some of them above any suspicion in the eyes of their own authorities – lose everything at home due to excessive caution on the part of European companies in relation to spiteful US foreign policy.
The ICC sanctions are targeted (and only a couple of people), but they prove it can be applied to anyone, without merit and without due process. This is also why Europe needs to get rid of their dependence on Visa/Mastercard.
Also, if companies serve their customers, governments serve their civilians. If you want to argue bad faith, governments serve national interest, while companies serve themselves, and ultimately the jurisdiction they fall under. What do you think better aligns with my interests as a Dutch person: the interests of the Dutch government, or the interests of the United States government? Do you believe Google will best serve me as a Dutch person, or the US government?
All the arguments about 'European government bad' assume bad faith. They discount we have some of the most democratic, liberal governments in existence. Unlike countries such as Russia, China, and even the United States. But the only government (apart from a State such as California) which consistently protected civilian rights online is the EU, a couple of European countries, and some other ones in the free West (Canada, I am not sure about Japan and South Korea).
> As a result they now can't book a hotel, use credit cards or access everyday services. As Nicolas Guillou says 'You are effectively blacklisted by much of the world's banking system'
Totally agree that this is absurd and disportionate, especially as a consequence of a US decision.
I mean, it's one thing to sanction a foreign billionaire: freezing their assets, thus preventing them from wielding their power in our borders is perfectly reasonable... But for a normal citizen living within your borders, freezing everything and preventing them from working is disenfranchising them and denying them all personal property rights (without judicial process!)
There are a bunch of examples of people in Europe who have also been sanctioned because of their political work. The first two that come to mind:
If we're moving away from USA tech, I hope that we're not blindly trusting stuff simply being hosted in EU, but rather use the opportunity to spread our eggs in more jurisdiction baskets (rather than only the EU basket)
Who is 'we'? Which data are you referring to? (If you mean e.g. Samsung Galaxy with GrapheneOS, by all means.)
We need to consider a few factors.
If you are from EU, and you want GDPR to be enforced, you need to work with countries which follow your local law. The USA is hinting at no longer doing so, since it retaliates with sanctions.
Now, where would you host, and why? Norway seems like an interesting target, since they are very high on renewable energy. Norway isn't part of EU, but part of the EEA. Latency with Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan, and Australia isn't going to be ideal. But if the company behind it is from there, and they have a local presence in Europe, why not? Could even work with proprietary software. FOSS can help here.
Hardware is a difficult target. It is near impossible to avoid China in this regard. And if you do, you often end up with US products. OSHW can help, but it is rather uncommon. We also have a constraint: we need energy efficient in Europe.
It it's something public/political like a Lemmy/Mastodon instance, I would pick a foreign jurisdiction which is unlikely to enforce something like the UK's OSA or USA and EU sanctions... I don't know where it would be best, some country in the Balkans, maybe?
If it's a service (even commercial) meant to be used only by a few people that I have direct (personal or business) relationships, I'd just ask their preferences (and bias towards the cheapest jurisdiction for hosting).
If it's something B2C, hosting exclusively outside of Europe would probably just make things more difficult to me, so it'd probably be within the EU (Hetzner?)
You are much more likely to be repressed/harrassed/arrested by your local government than a foreign government. So a local government knowing your behavior is more likely to lead to bad consequences than a foreign government knowing.
Of course, that might change in the future. Hypothetical example, the US government bans you from using any US cloud services because of what you did in private.
Though that's not exactly exclusive to governments either, Google banning you from GMail and Google Docs because of your YouTube uploads is already a thing.
There is certainly plenty of retaliation happening against non-compliant speech and people. The federal government has been used as a weapon against pro Palestinian activists, people are being imprisoned by Ice on the day of their citizenship ceremony, "enemy" officials like Leticia James face politically motivated investigations, universities are being bullied into ideological compliance and on and on.
They need to follow the law such as GDPR. American companies have to as well, but if they won't, will they be held accountable? Or will there be even more sanctions?
> 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.
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?
Yes? It’s not exactly a surprise that you are expected to follow the laws where you do business. This doesn’t mean those laws are inherently good or bad, that’s a judgement which requires analysis to make and businesses quite reasonably might choose not to stay in a market based on that decision as Google did with China.
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.
I would just like the early American project of liberal democracy and Constitutional rights to outlive American capitalism and American militarism, even if it means it survives it in some other country. Because it's looking pretty bleak over here.
We ought to avoid repeating your mistakes, no? Maybe unlimited campaign donations and so on, all this wonderful "American free speech (money = speech)" is a fundamentally bad idea. Worked exceedingly well for ~225 years, now it has lead to the implosion of the empire by electing a sociopathic retard to the presidency. Yes to free speech, no to whatever fucked up shit the US, its billionaire "libertarians" and Christian nationalists are pushing for us to adopt here in Europe.
If the likes of JD Vance are pushing for us to adopt his idea of free speech, you can be sure it's a bad idea.
The American political system didn't implode until its system of capitalism had the conditions necessary to escape its popular control. That wasn't necessarily an eventuality. We had a semi-functional campaign finance system in living memory.
Without the protections the Americans tried to shove into the First Amendment (which did not include anything about corporations at the time, as they did not exist) being enshrined into law, I worry that your issues with capital-government overreach will arise even faster than ours.
I don’t disagree with you but I disagree on a point of history.
> Without the protections the Americans tried to shove into the First Amendment (which did not include anything about corporations at the time, as they did not exist) being enshrined into law
If I recall correctly, Britain had joint stock companies from the 1600s, and Adam Smith and all that. They also even before this had “trusts” and “trusts which own trusts” which had certain rights, and the court of chancery had established precedent around these.
The French also had a massive state stock company in this time, and it became a massive bubble which imploded in XXXX. This attracted a lot of attention and commentary and it’s impossible that the American Founders were ignorant.
The Brit’s never had a freedom of speech, but in English common law, companies had property rights, standing to sue, and so on. Most activities a business person could take, they could take on behalf of their company instead.
So in the American context, it seems that the founders were likely aware of corporations. Why they didn’t put explicit limits in the first amendment, who knows. Maybe it just didn’t seem important at the time.
It came very close in the 1930s, it is arguable that the New Deal headed off revolution
The USA should have been considered a pariah state since the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, now it is rapidly becoming one
The USAnian system has been a corrupt oligarchy with only trappings of democracy since it's inception. Those "trappings" run deep, but are not allowed to unseat the true source of power: money
The Founding Fathers [sic] gave that a lot of thought and worked very hard to make it that way from the very beginning
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.
Of course not. It's only censorship if the rules are censoring rules. Just because a billionaire right wing extremist cries "cEnSoRsHiP" everytime people who criticise him aren't imprisoned doesn't mean it is.
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.
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.
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).
> 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.
The most fun proof this isn't the case is Keith Alexander lying in congress with 'not willingly' which is something completely different from 'not knowingly'. The NSA uses loopholes in laws and back around Snowden they played the card of using one European Union country versus another.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's leave "liberal" definition aside. I agree it's not well defined - I only used, because you said "maximally liberal".
A dilemma is a hard choice.
A paradox is a principle that undermines itself when applied consistently. It doesn't "seem" like it - it is. In this case, if you stop intolerant ideas, you are no longer tolerant. That's quite simple, and Popper named it correctly as such. Now, if I put my 2c on it, the danger of this arbitrary "Tolerant except for the Anti-tolerant" idea is that, the tools you use to stop the Anti-Tolerant will one day turn around be used against the Tolerant as well, because these definitions are fluid.
When the example are "People from X are vermin" - yes this is anti-tolerant. But when "We should first create jobs for people born here"; is this anti-tolerant? It's a slippery slope where all ideas except the ruling one can be muted.
Exactly, Popper recognized that the paradox was not a rule or even a suggestion, but was rather a problem without a clear solution. That’s why he named it as such.
Besides, Popper isn’t a god nor is he the only one with an opinion on this problem. Rawls for instance thought that only in exceptional circumstances should intolerance be suppressed. Popper’s paradox also isn’t anything special, literally every theory of human rights can be attacked by finding specific cases in which exceptions must be made for self protection. These exceptions do not invalidate those rights nor the necessity for them.
> These exceptions do not invalidate those rights nor the necessity for them.
Important, glad you mention that. The Paradox of Tolerance gives people a tool to free themselves from rigid beliefs that ultimately push people to give up rights. People are way more united if they can see each other unmediated. They share principles! Guided by these a healthy debate and democratic process is possible. Revisiting decisions as well when society progresses.
(Ok, I think the confusion is due to how English has used this french word for centuries, but since early 20th century gave it a new meaning. English Wikipedia redefines it from "seemingly absurd yet really true" to a shallow form, erasing doxa, thus only keeping a contradiction as defined in formal Logic.)
My point is that Anti-Intolerance is the essence of Tolerance, not something outside of it.
> , the tools you use to stop the Anti-Tolerant will one day turn around be used against the Tolerant as well, because these definitions are fluid.
I understand. Discussion about that should be part of a healthy society, between conformant players that respect the public democratic order. Knowing the paradox is the anti-dote against the players seeking to destroy this shared system, those that do not respect democratic boundaries, they like to play the game of taking a principle, coming up with something absurd, declaring that the principle should be understood as rigid, all to declare that the principle does not exist. Because for the few to take advantage, the many have to give up their common values.
That is the big rift. And that is why I want to give this tool to the online HN reader, because the learned Rigid Beliefs only serve to destroy common principles needed for a just society. (Especially in the US context, where boolean thinking is imho very prevalent, which I see as the fruits of political marketing.) People reading about the Paradox might get some proper mind frame for the first time to escape the nihilist narratives.
> When the example are "People from X are vermin" - yes this is anti-tolerant. But when "We should first create jobs for people born here"; is this anti-tolerant? It's a slippery slope where all ideas except the ruling one can be muted.
When you discriminate against people not born here, I would ask: why?
a) Are people born here disadvantaged and do you bring balance, or
b) Do you think citizens not born here are less worthy than
those who are?
In the case of (a), I can see how you could propose that. There might be a discussion about equal outcome or equal chance. You have a democracy and public healthy debate, you share a common society. I propose you have a debate and vote for it.
In the case of (b), this would not be a discussion in my country as the constitution stipulates that everyone being in this country will be treated equally in the same circumstances, reasoning from "equal value". There is also the declaration of Human Rights. So I would say it puts a real burden on the proponent to defend why seeking inequality at the detriment of a group is justified.
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.
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.
What does "cursory search" mean to you? Whatever it is, you should considering adding Google or some other basic search engine. Regardless, Wikipedia backs up the truth of the comment you are replying to.
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.
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.
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.
Who would've guessed after Europes citizens repeatedly voted for borderline fascist parties in plenty of countries?
"Oh no some immigrant stole something out of my garden, time to vote a party that not only introduces inhumane immigration policies but also undermines the countries whole social security net due to my inability to think outside the box and personal vendetta against immigrants, surely this will improve things" - 90% of millennials and gen x people I see. People just get dumber and dumber again, education systems are failing since decades. Politicians benefit off of that because its so much easier to introduce propaganda and introduce strawman arguments for their bullshittery. It will get so much worse globally because everyone is frying their brains with smut newspapers, social media, trash tv, youtube, twitch etc etc. Most people my age (~30) dont even have opinions anymore, they just echo whatever their current favorite influencer throws out there and call it "their" opinion without being able to elaborate on it if questioned. Also everyone takes everything so personal too, you cant have arguments anymore without one party feeling personally attacked.
I literally had someone say to me (not online) they'd like everyone to be chipped so missing people could be found easier, which left me pretty baffled given that 80 years ago my country tried to find and eradicate every jew. Humanity is beyond broken.
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.
> They were also typically opposed to these kinds of surveillance measures
The mistake one should not make is thinking that those parties have any policy for the common good. People, from journalists to the man on the street, ignore all the lies, the crazy things, the falsehoods refuted by science, the attacks on the rule of law--only to discuss their political marketing flyer like it would constitute any real policy, as if these parties leaderships are sponsored just for that.
And when these populists get in power and do the complete opposite of everything they had promised, then the press will miss that, because the press is so easily distracted by the bullshitting clowns. In the mean time, fewer and fewer people believe in democracy anymore.
His whole argument is extremely solid. I am sorry.
>His whole argument is extremely solid. I am sorry.
His argument implies it is because of these parties when again. It's countries where they are not in power leading this charge and this started well before the increase in popularity of said parties.
Meanwhile these parties typically vote against.
>get in power and do the complete opposite of everything they had promised, then
I have the impression that most people believing and repeating this "great replacement" narrative are not members of the demographics they claim are being replaced. To me it seems mostly spread by people living outside of Europe trying to paint Europe in a bad light in order to push fear and anti-immigration policies in the general west.
Unfortunately, it's not an uncommon thing to hear from people when performing community outreach (think door knocking). External push, definitely, but it's also being repeated by the demographic this narrative is being pushed to.
I can't comment on whether or not they believe it, but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
> but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
To be fair to Ireland and history they have a valid complaint going back centuries wrt outsiders taking their lands, language, governance, food and labour all while debating "the Irish Question" and reaching for eugenic "solutions".
> To be fair to Ireland and history they have a valid complaint going back centuries wrt outsiders taking their lands, language, governance, food and labour all while debating "the Irish Question" and reaching for eugenic "solutions".
Odd then, that they didn't notice when this happened post GFC when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off to (predominantly) US based private equity funds.
And honestly, Irish anti-immigration sentiment is far more driven by both our complete failures at building infrastructure for a growing population (which we've never had before) and the fact that all refugees are housed in poor areas (which already had much worse services).
But it's very important that no residents of South Dublin should be inconvenienced, even at the cost of our society.
I more or less nodded along in general agreement save for
> for a growing population (which we've never had before)
and feel I might remind you that in the time span of my comment (past centuries) Irelands population nearly tripled in the 40 years following 1700 to a peak greater than the current population number.
> and feel I might remind you that in the time span of my comment (past centuries) Irelands population nearly tripled in the 40 years following 1700 to a peak greater than the current population number.
True, the political system was very different then though, and the government of the time (to put it lightly) was not concerned with the needs of those citizens (c.f. penal laws etc).
I wouldn't say anyone didn't notice "when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off", there was years of protest and reporting about this.
> Irish anti-immigration sentiment is far more driven by both our complete failures at building infrastructure
Yeah, I'd largely agree it's a services issue, and most people I speak with correctly direct that anger at the state.
> I wouldn't say anyone didn't notice "when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off", there was years of protest and reporting about this.
I definitely was upset at the time, but didn't really notice many people paying attention. We basically sold off our future development policy to get out of the Troika bailout (and I understand why this happened, but I think the long term consequences of this are have been shown to be really, really bad).
> Yeah, I'd largely agree it's a services issue, and most people I speak with correctly direct that anger at the state.
And they are correct to do so. Basically all FFG have done is wait until the housing issue had gone way too far (and started impacting their voters) and then done a bunch of demand side initiatives which have just pushed up prices rather than focusing on the development side.
Not to mention the absurdity of our national spatial strategy where we won't zone more in Dublin and instead want people to move to Meath & Wicklow and commute for hours to their jobs.
But at least no-one's left in negative equity. FML.
So if you look at money, education etc basically the south of Dublin is incredibly rich relative to the rest of the country. It tends to be where much of the media and business interests of the country are focused, and you never see (for example) a Traveller halting site, or an immigration centre being set up there. Whereas, if you look at a place like Tallaght (which to be fair is also south dublin) you'll see worse services, and lots of immigration centres.
It's a comment on the geographical inequalities and their impact on politics.
Don't get me wrong, I live in a similar Northside enclave, but it's really upsetting to me that much of the media and political elite live in bubbles where they don't see the consequences of their (bad) decisions.
Well, those are common talking points in some quarters, but I can tell you they're false, because I live in a southside suburb, the kind of place that journalists describe as "leafy". For the last couple of years, a large immigration centre has been operating a kilometer and a half away from my house. (You haven't heard of it because there were no protests about it.) There's a halting site located a kilometer away from me in the other direction.
Is the system perfect? No, of course not. But the Us vs Them polemics are unfair.
> Is the system perfect? No, of course not. But the Us vs Them polemics are unfair.
Fair enough, I recognise that I may have been unfair to many residents of South Dublin in my generalisation. That being said, there is a really common pattern of anything that inconveniences higher income voters being pushed into poorer areas.
For a good example, look at where all of the large apartment buildings are being actually built (as opposed to being judically reviewed). There's a pretty clear pattern of them being built in poorer areas relative to richer ones, and I guess that's where I'm coming from here.
Like, I live in a similarly leafy suburb (but on the Northside) and they wanted to build a set of high rise apartments on a junction next to the N3, and it was shut down with many angry comments. Meanwhile, over by Blanchardstown shopping centre (a much poorer area) they're building a similarly sized apartment block with local objections being steam-rollered.
IMO there's a massive difference between what's happening today, with individuals claiming asylum, compared to the State level interference of our history.
Seems like a low bar given the entire span of Britain's history - Londinium was founded by Mediterraneans, Danelaw covered half the Big Island for a good period, the Anglo-Saxons were Germanic immigrants pushed back by the Norman wave . . .
The UK is immigrant wave after wave all the way back to when it was nothing but solid ice pressing down the entire landmass and practically all the islands.
They're clearly not being replaced, as a look at the numbers indicates, but what is true for most European countries is that if the low birth rates stay far below 2.1 their populations will continue to decline and their economies will shrink, if they don't manage to offset that trend with controlled yearly immigration.
To clarify: Although it follows mathematically with constantly low birth rate, dying out is, of course, not a likely consequence. It seems likely that at some point when the economies shrink poverty would hit so seriously that the birth rates would start increasing again, as they seem to be negatively correlated with standards of living. However, we're talking about levels of shrinkage that feel like a collapse of the economy and social security/pension systems.
IMO the problem lies with this statement. For people like OP any "control" of immigration is going to be responded with the same criticisms. Because if you take a stance hard enough, any of these controls can be spun into anti-immigration.
By "controlled" I had something else in mind than what you seem to insinuate, namely that the yearly immigration rate must roughly match the desired long-term population stability. For a reasonable immigration system, you need to welcome the immigrants you want to get, provide a long-term perspective, and offer some incentives for them to come. Unlike the US, European countries have often failed at that basic job, or at least their immigration politics have been erratic and without constancy. Phrases like "a stance hard enough" are a symptom of the problem.
The biggest failure is that part of "provide a perspective" - not even a long-term. Immigrants were accepted and... that was all, probably expecting the invisible hand, or Santa, to magically sort stuff up. And then acting surprised when immigrants who were denied the right to work looked into, ahem, "alternate" income sources, or original cultural behaviors got carried over. One could even get the idea that all these failures were by design to keep a handy scapegoat for their own failures (or misdeeds). Thus the anger of the alt-truth crowd not only with said immigrants but also with the system which failed everybody (except the system people).
My country (Germany) still consists out of 72.65% Germans (Wikipedia/Destatis Sept. 2025).
Every other ethnic doesn't surpass 4%.
Being an open and multicultural country kinda implies that other ethnics have a place here, and that's a good thing. Nationalism is the last thing my country needs.
You hope to discredit the argument that European peoples are being replaced by categorizing it as a crazy conspiracy theory about Jews or whatever. I'm merely making a conclusion based on current immigration trends.
>>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?
You have a weird sense of humanity if any of the attached links make you feel they were overblown. Why should Germans import all that necessary extra death and trauma when they have enough of their own?
> 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.
> 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.
>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.
> 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.
> 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...
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
We should not mix random unknown person being bullied online with VIPs or politicians being made fun of.
Even during the Roman Republic people could make fun of or heavily insult politicians, and also with ugly things that we could never say today. Even Julius Caesar was mocked heavily (the famous "every woman's man and every man's woman")
...unsurprisingly, this changed when the Republic ended and the Empire started.
And here we're today thinking about our sensitive politicians :)
Exactly, the right to mock one’s rulers should be considered fundamental in a modern society. It’s part of the price of power and an important release valve for social tensions.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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...
> 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.
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?
You might need to disclose social media accounts, phone numbers, email accounts, and a lot of other information, regardless of your burner: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dz0g2ykpeo
Depends on when that goes into effect and how thoroughly it's actually implemented.
Isn't that highly suspicious? Or are you preparing burners with years of alternate social profiles activity? Because blatantly lying to the authorities is not something I'd take easily...
Why lie? If they ask you why there isn’t anything on there, just say you brought a cheap replacement phone because you didn’t want to lose or break your expensive daily device while traveling. Or because you don’t want it stolen or hacked when you’re in a foreign country. All valid reasons. Pick and choose whatever is most accurate for you.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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
> ... 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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?
EEA, countries in Europe but not in EU, Schengen and so on I'm familiar with, but it's the first time I heard about Outermost Regions. Thanks for explaining!
The French overseas départements are examples: Réunion and Mayotte (in the Indian Ocean), Guadeloupe and Martinique (in the Carribeans), and Guyane (in South America). There is also Saint Martin (French, but not a département), the Azores and Madeira (Portugal) and the Canaries (Spain). All these places are in the EU and use the Euro despite not being in Europe.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.