Escaping the trap of US tech dependence

Perceived lack of concrete solutions

• Several commenters say the article’s prescriptions are vague or aspirational.
• One view: disentanglement must start by politically “buying the idea,” which recent US politics have ironically helped sell abroad.

Market forces vs protectionism

• One camp argues you “can’t fight market forces”: to displace US tech you must build something better, not just regulate.
• Others strongly disagree, citing China and Korea’s protectionism as the only proven path to tech sovereignty, and likening US VC‑funded dumping to state‑subsidized “artificially cheap” goods.
• Ride‑sharing in Austin is used as a case where a non‑profit, acceptable alternative was destroyed by incumbents undercutting prices with VC money, framed as oligopoly, not “free market.”

Quality and trajectory of US tech

• Many users complain US big‑tech products are worsening: buggy workflows, poor documentation, pervasive “enshittification,” and lock‑in (e.g., Apple Silicon).
• Some still cite notable advances (Apple Silicon performance, cloud platforms), but others say hardware gains are negated by bad software and abusive business models.
• A few predict US software firms will follow Boeing/Intel’s decline, with cloud providers as the likely survivors.

Security, politics, and availability risk

• Non‑US commenters stress that dependence is now dangerous because of availability risk: US firms or government could abruptly cut off services (e.g., ICC email incident, threats toward allies).
• This is framed as economic warfare and blackmail potential, especially under current US politics.
• Others counter that politicized deplatforming is not new and occurs domestically too; there’s dispute over whether current threats (e.g., mass deportations, invasions/annexations) are exaggerated or well‑supported.

Individual exit strategies from US tech

• Several users describe concrete moves:
  • Migrating from Gmail/Fastmail/Dropbox/Backblaze to Proton (Mail/Drive) and Hetzner.
  • Moving photos out of Apple’s cloud, donating more to non‑profits (e.g., Mastodon).
  • Switching to Linux desktops and privacy‑focused phones (GrapheneOS, /e/OS, Fairphone+Murena).
• Motivation is both privacy and fear that US‑hosted data can be seized or weaponized.

China and other non‑US options

• Some propose “just buy from China” (Huawei, WeChat, BYD) as the simplest escape, arguing Chinese hardware is already advanced and cheap.
• Others warn this is “out of the frying pan into the fire”: Chinese tech underpins repression and surveillance in authoritarian states, and doesn’t obviously increase sovereignty.

Europe/Canada: capital, cloud, and industrial policy

• Multiple comments argue Europe and Canada lack risk‑tolerant capital; domestic VCs are seen as conservative and biased toward existing monopolies.
• Suggested remedies:
  • New public agencies / crown corporations to build “tech in the public interest” and keep ownership in‑house (no subcontracting).
  • EU‑backed cloud “building blocks” (VMs, object storage, functions, etc.) as a strategic layer; debate ensues whether this must start at hardware (ARM/RISC‑V, routers) or at cloud abstractions.
• Some insist many alternatives are “already built” and need political and procurement support more than new R&D.

Depth of dependence: hardware, finance, AI

• Commenters note that even with Linux and EU data centers, core components are still US: CPUs (Intel/AMD/Apple/Qualcomm), firmware, networking (Cisco).
• Others reply that global supply chains are mutual (ASML, ARM, Nokia/Ericsson), and decoupling will be gradual but feasible.
• Financial dependence on US infrastructure is seen by some as an even bigger issue; others say BRICS and EU alternatives are already in motion.
• On AI, a few warn of a future where “don’t learn to code, just use LLMs” deepens dependence; others say LLMs are still easily ditchable today. Non‑US LLMs (Qwen, DeepSeek, Mistral) and tools like LM Arena are mentioned as emerging options.