Don't invite big tech to your digital autonomy discussion

Bert Hubert attended a European digital autonomy event recently. He accepted the invitation without checking the guest list. When he arrived, US big tech was there too, and they had speaking slots.

Hubert makes the case against this in a blog post: these companies cannot help you gain independence from them. Their revenue depends on the status quo.

Microsoft's own track record illustrates the problem. Vice-president Brad Smith told an audience Microsoft would go to court to protect European rights. Within a week, Microsoft told the International Criminal Court it had to remove several employees from Microsoft services because of US sanctions. Microsoft did not go to court to defend the ICC.

If you invite US big tech to a sovereignty discussion, you spend time listening to claims that don't survive contact with reality. Amazon gets ten minutes to present its sovereign cloud. Someone else debunks it. The meeting still walks away with the impression it might be true. The issue has been both-sidesed.

Any increase in European sovereignty cuts into US big tech's revenue. These companies know this. They show up to raise doubts or position themselves as part of the solution.

Hubert draws a comparison to health policy: tobacco and alcohol companies once offered to be part of the solution too. The results speak for themselves.

The fix is straightforward. You don't need to cut Microsoft, Google, and Amazon out of your life. Their employees are often pleasant collaborators. But don't invite them to help you become independent from them.

The problem extends beyond direct participation. US big tech spends heavily on think tanks and civil society organizations. They don't do this out of goodwill. European industry organizations have been co-opted as well.

Digital autonomy requires honest conversation about dependencies. Including the companies you depend on defeats the purpose. Their business model depends on keeping you dependent. Why would they help you change that?

The path forward: discuss sovereignty among the people building it, not the people profiting from its absence.