Europe wants to end its dangerous reliance on US internet technology

Motivation to Reduce US Tech Dependence

• Many argue it is rational for every region—including the US itself—to reduce reliance on US Big Tech, seen as oligarchic, surveillance-driven, and politically unstable.
• Trump-era and current US politics are viewed as proof the US is not a reliable partner; some see this as now an existential issue, not a temporary aberration.

Political and Economic Context

• Several comments describe the US as an oligarchy shaped by campaign-finance rules, dark money, and billionaire influence; others dispute this, arguing elections are driven more by media cycles than donors.
• Debate over whether Europe is also effectively oligarchic, with banks and elites heavily invested in US assets.
• Some see European “socialism” (shorter hours, strong safety nets) as a barrier to competitiveness; others argue it is exactly what will allow shared gains from AI, unlike the US model where productivity mainly enriches capital owners.

Why Europe Hasn’t Built Its Own “Big Tech”

• Structural issues raised: fragmented markets/languages, heavy bureaucracy, risk-averse banks, slower decision-making, and cultural resistance to making billionaire-creation an explicit policy goal.
• Counterpoint: Europe doesn’t need US-style monopolistic “Big Tech”; it needs a broad, open, competitive tech base, not its own surveillance capitalists.

Current Lock‑In: Microsoft 365, Clouds, Payments, OS

• Microsoft 365 is seen as deeply entrenched: “good enough,” cheap, integrated, and extremely sticky once terabytes of data and workflows accumulate.
• Some insist there are viable alternatives (Nextcloud, Zoho, European office/cloud suites) but network effects, compatibility (especially Excel macros), and “nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft” inertia dominate.
• Broader dependence: US-controlled OSes, app stores, social media, payments (Visa/Mastercard/PayPal), and CPU/firmware stacks are noted as critical sovereignty gaps.

Open Source and “Digital Sovereignty” Strategies

• Strong support for EU governments funding and adopting open source, open standards, and interoperability; examples include French and UK gov OSS initiatives, though some are dismissed as half-hearted “repo dumps.”
• Suggestions: tax incentives for OSS work (with concerns about gaming), banning outsourced “black-box” gov projects, unlocked bootloaders and driver docs, anti–lock-in regulation (banking, anti-cheat, chat interoperability).

Resilience, Blackouts, and Security

• Digital blackout drills in Sweden are seen as late and insufficient; commenters note Russia, Iran, and China have long hardened their infrastructure.
• US tech dominance is described as a national-security risk: sanctions or account cutoffs could halt European organizations dependent on US clouds and platforms.
• Social media–driven “digital imperialism” and algorithmic manipulation by both domestic and foreign actors are viewed as a major vulnerability.

Prospects: Real Shift or Just Talk?

• Many are skeptical the EU will move beyond statements, summits, and regulations, given decades of outsourcing to US defense and tech.
• Others see concrete early shifts: migrations to EU stacks, stricter GDPR-driven limits on US services, and growing popular backlash (boycott apps, hostility to US products).
• Overall mood: broad agreement that decoupling is necessary; deep disagreement over whether Europe can or will actually execute.