The Post-American Internet

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Growing fears about U.S. political instability, extraterritorial sanctions and tech monopolies are fueling calls for a more “post‑American” internet, especially in Europe. Commenters debate how dependent EU states really are on U.S. platforms, chips and cloud services, whether open source and local industry could viably replace them, and how quickly such a shift could happen without crippling smartphones, infrastructure and defence. Underlying the technical arguments is a broader concern about surveillance, digital sovereignty and the balance of power between governments, corporations and citizens in an increasingly fragmented world order.

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.