It reinforces the need for the EU to break free from US tech.
This is plain corporate malfeasance and corruption.
If anything its highly anti-American, borderline communist/state regime.
American values include many things, one of the more important being free speech.
Such a violation deserves reciprocity, stop blaming issues on the wrong things.
However, that's not the de-facto definition of the US as a geopolitical player right now and Europe can't afford to pretend those two are the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
(50) In the same vein, study the right wing concept of
"free market" as an exercise.The court believes that it has jurisdiction over anyone involved in a conflict with a signatory. This is why the president is preauthorized by congress to use military force against the Netherlands, in the event that an american or allied service member is held there.
I’m not convinced that “digital sovereignty” is the right framing for this problem. What I think is more important here - and probably more interesting to HN - is the fragility introduced by technological monocultures and lack of service portability. Open protocols, interoperability, and reducing concentration risk matter more than trying to build a digitally fenced-off Europe.
China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues.
Well it all comes down to the incentives and money. Money printing sieves money into such titans, concentrating business. You gotta look at the banking cartel before anything else.
- Europe
- LATAM
- subsaharan Africa
ICC nonsignatories:
- US
- China
- India
- Russia
- Turkey
- Israel
- Pakistan
- Egypt
- Saudi Arabia
Hubris is imagining a situation in which The Hague Act is ever tested in the first place!