The Post-American Internet

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Dependency on US Tech & Cutoff Scenarios

  • Several comments explore a hypothetical US–EU rupture where Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. withdraw or “brick” services, potentially crippling EU digital infrastructure.
  • Some argue this is technically and economically plausible (US export control over ASML, dominance of Microsoft in government/enterprise, cloud lock‑in); others say companies couldn’t afford to abandon such a large market and would resist.
  • Hardware is framed as the real bottleneck: EU could fork Android or build OSes, but replacing TSMC‑class fabs and complex supply chains is far harder.
  • Others counter that China, Korea, or smaller players (e.g. Finnish OS vendors, Linux phones) would quickly fill gaps, albeit with quality and ecosystem costs.

Digital Sovereignty, Open Source, and Alternatives

  • Multiple EU public-sector practitioners report serious contingency planning to leave Microsoft/iOS and more interest in Linux and self‑hosted systems, though migration on the desktop remains rare.
  • Commenters see repeal of anti‑circumvention/DRM protections as a high‑leverage tool: enable legal jailbreaking, third‑party repair, and local app stores instead of forcing US firms to ship specific features.
  • Skeptics note user apathy and UX friction: most people don’t sideload, root, or switch app stores even when possible; ecosystems like Epic Store, F‑Droid, /e/OS remain niche.
  • There’s support for mandating open standards, data export, and self‑hosting capabilities in public procurement, rather than blanket “open source only” rules.

Surveillance, Regulation, and Speech Norms

  • Strong debate over whether the EU or US is more “surveillance‑heavy.”
    • One side: US has broader secret powers (PRISM, CLOUD Act), weak privacy law, and can’t be trusted with EU data.
    • Other side: EU pushes visible surveillance proposals (chat control, ID mandates), and some member states aggressively prosecute online speech.
  • People distinguish “regulation vs. surveillance vs. censorship.” EU platform rules are framed by some as censorship, by others as normal “follow local law if you want access to the market.”
  • Long subthread on the “paradox of tolerance”: where to draw lines on hate speech and harassment, and whether restricting some speech inevitably erodes free speech in general.

Geopolitics, Vassalage, and Trade/IP

  • Several see European states as de facto US vassals, especially in defense (Ukraine, NATO), while others describe a co‑dependence the EU could reduce with more spending and industrial policy.
  • Trade treaties and US‑driven IP/DRM regimes are criticized as tools that export US interests; some propose retaliation by relaxing enforcement of US‑style IP, despite fear of sanctions and tech cutoffs.
  • Concerns raised about US sanctions hitting EU citizens (e.g. judges, ICC staff) via global finance rails, reinforcing the push to reduce US leverage (payments, clouds, platforms).

Billionaires, Enshittification, and AI

  • Many embrace the article’s “enshittification” framing: platforms start user‑friendly, then pivot to exploiting users and business customers, then pure rent extraction.
  • Disagreement over billionaires: some say extreme wealth necessarily reflects exploitation; others argue “Western‑style billionaires” mostly create value by providing services.
  • AI‑generated code is seen by some as the next control lever—creating “techno‑serfs” dependent on closed tools; others view this as overblown or tangential.

Skepticism About the Post‑American Internet Vision

  • Critics see the piece as emotionally compelling but light on realistic pathways: entrenched IP regimes, user inertia, and governments’ own appetite for control apply in the EU as much as in the US.
  • There’s doubt that broad political coalitions can be built around these issues without devolving into culture‑war alignment rather than concrete, shared policy goals.