The Post-American Internet
Key topics
The notion of a "Post-American Internet" is sparking a heated debate about the potential consequences of a technological rift between the US and the EU, with commenters weighing in on the likelihood of companies like Apple and Google pulling out of the EU market. Some speculate that if the EU repeals certain copyright directives, it could lead to innovative workarounds, such as jailbreaking phones or creating hardware dongles, while others point out that companies like ASML, critical to the semiconductor industry, are heavily influenced by the US. As the discussion unfolds, it becomes clear that the EU's efforts to invest in native semiconductor technologies are seen as a strategic move to reduce dependence on US-controlled tech. The thread is abuzz with divergent views, from those who think Apple and Google would never abandon the EU market to those who believe a complete rupture is possible, making for a fascinating exploration of the complex interplay between geopolitics and technology.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
2h
Peak period
83
0-6h
Avg / period
20
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Jan 6, 2026 at 12:20 AM EST
4d ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Jan 6, 2026 at 2:08 AM EST
2h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
83 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Jan 8, 2026 at 3:47 PM EST
1d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Apple could easily block this, and in the situation described here of a complete rupture with the US, they would no longer operate and sell phones in the EU. If Google decided to do the same, that essentially leaves Europeans without smartphones. Microsoft could "brick" the rest of the EU's digital infrastructure overnight if they so wished, or were compelled to do so.
This makes the transition described in the article much more difficult. Although likely more urgent, from an European perspective.
In this scenario, I don't think it is correct to consider normal business relations, rather "is it *materially* possible?"
A Greenland invasion might lead to that.
It’s such ridiculous thing to suggest as a trigger, but here we are.
Not anymore, unfortunately
(Along with several other ridiculous hills simultaneously, stretching the metaphor to breaking point).
learn EUV technology history first, it originated from US department of energy research program, because of cost Gov decided to halt it but multiple private company take over the development but US Gov still hold a patent/license from that technology
Which are enforced by international agreements. At some point those don't matter anymore either and is also the point of the article.
Also Zeiss a Germany company is the only one that can make the optics required.
and whose in charge of international agreements between US and Netherlands ??? I think you mix up between who in power here
just eat up that some major power always playing geo-politic war games that exert its influences
they maybe have a friction and want to mess with each other but the domain of influence is always there and they generally dont want to cross the line for it
It's kind of ironic to think of a company as state controlled by the US given how anti-state-controlled the US can be when it comes to companies. ASML has majority shareholders in US companies like Intel and co, but that doesn't mean the US government has a say in it.
I mean they do because of international politics - just like the Dutch government has a say in things - but still.
Gotta also remember, that even if the EU would allow this, your average phone user would not use it. Just like your average phone user doesn't root their android smartphone or installs Lineage/Graphene/eOS/whatever. Even if it were made easier (or possible) for more phones, the vast majority would not use it and Apple and Google would still make a lot of money.
All the more reasons to go scorched earth on American companies. There's a point in every blackmail where the only way forward is through.
... for about 20 minutes before China steps in. Or Samsung with de Googled Android models.
For security quality reasons, I hope Apple have made that suggestion impossible, but for law enforcement reasons I doubt it and anticipate a backdoor exists.
Google wouldn't block enough of Android to matter: Core is open source, EU forks/alternatives are likely already under development, and even if not a complete rupture with the US also likely means rapidly getting comfortable with China despite everything, and China already have Android forks.
However, Google docs/sheets/etc are a common business alternative to Microsoft, and therefore such a transatlantic rupture also cuts that. FWIW, I've never encountered a business using LibreOffice etc.
Libreoffice is used quite a bit in administrations across EU. I would expect more stickiness to microsoft caused by legacy applications that requires windows to run rather than office.
Europe can make alternatives to US tech, and with it's track record it will probably be more open with more legitimate options and less predatory monopolies.
Once that is established with a home grown market of 450m people it will start competing with US in all the other markets.
Let's not forgot how many EU people work for US tech.
The difficult part is the hardware. That is also why the iPhone is produced in Asia. Replacing TSMC is much more difficult than the software.
Gobally Android also has a much larger market share than Apple. (Yes the US is the opposite, it is an outlier.)
The money problem is the sticking point; even if you can find investors, if you don't have guarantees of sales you're boned. Actually, this is the other problem: Android is not profitable per se, you don't get an "android license fee" on your bill if you buy a new phone. It's the tie-in with Google's services (default search engine with ads, app store, etc) that make it work. And even without those, Google is a company that originally made money off of ads on webpages, they could do whatever they want outside of that because their primary source of income was so reliable.
Debatable
Android is a solid basis for a homegrown solution. We just never had the need to build one just yet. What Google and Apple built was convenient. But it's not as irreplaceable as some might think.
Except all proprietary drivers tying you to an ancient Linux kernel and preventing upgrades of the OS.
You drastically underestimate how complicated it will be. Here is one attempt: https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/
> Creating good smartphone software is not easy.
Yes, but it's not rocket science either (and even if it were, the EU has both rocket scientists and a space port).
Maybe it's been too long for people to even imagine it, but European companies were fully capable of developing a smartphone OS and running an app certification platform (there were no app stores yet, as the industry was very fragmented) less than two decades ago.
They weren’t commercially successful because of network effects, which I think matter less when your back is against the wall to migrate away from the duopoly.
iPhone chips are largely produced in Arizona, and TSMC's 2nm fabs are scheduled to come online by 2028. 30% of TSMC's global production is schedule to be produced in America.
USA has been strategically re-homing TSMC to the USA mainland for a long time now.
Contrast with the EU, which has done nothing and has no ideas. It is unfortunate.
It appears that TSMC are not deploying the latest nodes to US for multiple years after they've entered volume production in Taiwan.
> First Fab: High-volume production on N4 process technology started in Q4 2024.
> Second Fab: Construction was completed on the fab structure in 2025. Volume production on N3 process technology targeted for 2028.
> Third Fab: In April 2025, TSMC broke ground on the site of the third fab, slated for N2 and A16 process technologies. Targeting volume production by the end of the decade.
> TSMC Arizona will play a crucial role in increasing U.S. production of advanced semiconductor technology and elevate the state of Arizona as an American center of innovation.
https://www.tsmc.com/static/abouttsmcaz/index.htm
> In July 2025, Wei indicated that the company would speed up its production timelines on multiple manufacturing facilities following an additional $100 billion investment in Arizona. He stated that the completion of a "gigafab" cluster totaling six facilities would account for 30 percent of TSMC's 2-nanometer and more advanced capacity semiconductor production within the state.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2025/07/...
The other part that Americans aren’t seeing coming is a reduction in the reduced willingness of the rest of rhe world to finance American debt. The last few rounds have seen a much higher percentage of corporate debt purchases as opposed to sovereign purchases. Which is fine for now, but if a slowdown hits, corporate purchases of U.S. debt will reduce in a way sovereign purchases never did (in fact those tend to increase).
That would severely impact the ability of the Fed to goose a slowing economy by lowering interest rates.
[1]: https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/currencies...
Then why are there approximately no European tech companies? You remember that FT graph....
Whenever trust is massively breached, and I believe much of the EU feels strongly that the US has breached trust, the natural action is to regroup and then gradually begin figuring out how to not be vulnerable to the same risk again.
If the US continues escalating the Greenland situation I expect that process will speed up massively.
1) The moment US decides to completely exit EU and brick their devices, China will step in and provide the alternatives. Or it will trigger some tech arms race inside Europe, and we will see European providers rise up.
2) US Tech companies can't afford to pull out. They might do some short-lived performative black-outs to show European customers how dependent they are, and they will for sure run to the government, who in turn will start trade wars. But in the end they simply can't afford to just pull out completely.
As others have mentioned, not only is it a danger to their own revenue, but the US stock market is being carried by these tech companies.
The US has always profited the most from providing products / services which are better and cheaper to Europe, to such a degree that organic growth has been naturally suppressed.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Yep, case and point is current situation in Russia, where US companies "pulled" out due to sanctions, but not really.
Same with the alternative app store support, it reminds me of when the EU mandated Microsoft to offer a Windows without Media Player. It didn't sell, because consumers don't actually care much - Media Player wasn't obnoxiously in the way.
You'd catch the brick, sand it and repurpose so it'll fit your home.
(for those fortunate enough to not understand the context of this proposal, back when the US was not yet itself a banana republic it used to support juntas that did things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War#Adolfo_Scilingo's_de... ; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor#U.S._involvem... )
We can't just outsource all our tech to the US anymore, if it isn't a reliable partner.
Did he outsource all of the country's oil reliance to Putin's Russia? Wait, no, that was the EU.
Did he also laugh at anyone telling him not to do that since it made him rely on Putin's Russia? Wait no, that was also the EU.
We receive Oil from multiple Suppliers including Norway, United States, Kazakhstan, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.
The Russian Oil via India is certainly less than 30%
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
I'm not saying I know exactly what's up but its super sus.
At what point is it then necessary? The whole talk is about getting away from this.
Of course that is how democracy works. You'll have multiple factions working toward their own goals with very different ideologies, and the EU has a lot of that. For the most part what comes out is great, because compromise is how you get things done when there aren't just two sides. For survailance, however, there are really just two sides and the wrong one of them is winning.
The US is doing that too, and has been pretty open about it for years.
"Oh no some immigrant stole something out of my garden, time to vote a party that not only introduces inhumane immigration policies but also undermines the countries whole social security net due to my inability to think outside the box and personal vendetta against immigrants, surely this will improve things" - 90% of millennials and gen x people I see. People just get dumber and dumber again, education systems are failing since decades. Politicians benefit off of that because its so much easier to introduce propaganda and introduce strawman arguments for their bullshittery. It will get so much worse globally because everyone is frying their brains with smut newspapers, social media, trash tv, youtube, twitch etc etc. Most people my age (~30) dont even have opinions anymore, they just echo whatever their current favorite influencer throws out there and call it "their" opinion without being able to elaborate on it if questioned. Also everyone takes everything so personal too, you cant have arguments anymore without one party feeling personally attacked. I literally had someone say to me (not online) they'd like everyone to be chipped so missing people could be found easier, which left me pretty baffled given that 80 years ago my country tried to find and eradicate every jew. Humanity is beyond broken.
As for the rest.... given that my country Belgium nearly balkanized in the past due to sectarianism and it's influence on politics this kind of stuff was a pretty obvious big downside to the migration of the past 2 decades from the start. (It really does become a ball and chain on every kind of effective policy) Especially since we're a bit ahead of many countries on the migration front too.
The mistake one should not make is thinking that those parties have any policy for the common good. People, from journalists to the man on the street, ignore all the lies, the crazy things, the falsehoods refuted by science, the attacks on the rule of law--only to discuss their political marketing flyer like it would constitute any real policy, as if these parties leaderships are sponsored just for that. And when these populists get in power and do the complete opposite of everything they had promised, then the press will miss that, because the press is so easily distracted by the bullshitting clowns. In the mean time, fewer and fewer people believe in democracy anymore.
His whole argument is extremely solid. I am sorry.
His argument implies it is because of these parties when again. It's countries where they are not in power leading this charge and this started well before the increase in popularity of said parties.
Meanwhile these parties typically vote against.
>get in power and do the complete opposite of everything they had promised, then
I even acknowledge that in the next sentence.
European peoples are literally being replaced in their homelands. The current policies you call "inhumane" are actually the moderate solutions.
I can't comment on whether or not they believe it, but it's certainly repeated by some here in Ireland.
To be fair to Ireland and history they have a valid complaint going back centuries wrt outsiders taking their lands, language, governance, food and labour all while debating "the Irish Question" and reaching for eugenic "solutions".
Odd then, that they didn't notice when this happened post GFC when basically all of the land banks and large assets were sold off to (predominantly) US based private equity funds.
And honestly, Irish anti-immigration sentiment is far more driven by both our complete failures at building infrastructure for a growing population (which we've never had before) and the fact that all refugees are housed in poor areas (which already had much worse services).
But it's very important that no residents of South Dublin should be inconvenienced, even at the cost of our society.
> for a growing population (which we've never had before)
and feel I might remind you that in the time span of my comment (past centuries) Irelands population nearly tripled in the 40 years following 1700 to a peak greater than the current population number.
> Irish anti-immigration sentiment is far more driven by both our complete failures at building infrastructure
Yeah, I'd largely agree it's a services issue, and most people I speak with correctly direct that anger at the state.
What's that supposed to mean?
The UK is immigrant wave after wave all the way back to when it was nothing but solid ice pressing down the entire landmass and practically all the islands.
Every other ethnic doesn't surpass 4%.
Being an open and multicultural country kinda implies that other ethnics have a place here, and that's a good thing. Nationalism is the last thing my country needs.
>Being an open and multicultural country
This is begging the question.
>Nationalism is the last thing my country needs.
Whatever genes made you say that are maladaptive.
To clarify: Although it follows mathematically with constantly low birth rate, dying out is, of course, not a likely consequence. It seems likely that at some point when the economies shrink poverty would hit so seriously that the birth rates would start increasing again, as they seem to be negatively correlated with standards of living. However, we're talking about levels of shrinkage that feel like a collapse of the economy and social security/pension systems.
IMO the problem lies with this statement. For people like OP any "control" of immigration is going to be responded with the same criticisms. Because if you take a stance hard enough, any of these controls can be spun into anti-immigration.
That's just another way of saying "replace themselves."
/s
I thought it was more because of them driving over people at Christmas markets, forming rape gangs or stabbing random people on the streets. It's deep intellectually dishonesty like yours that is driving them to that "party". Which is a bit ironic isn't it?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2dz7r708dxo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Magdeburg_car_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_New_Year%27s_E...
The EU is also not a monolith, it’s different entities with not perfectly aligned interests, some of which representing member states, some of which citizens, again with significant divergence of opinion. The court of justice frequently finds against member states governments, for example.
TL;DR: "the EU" does not want things. Different participants want different things and what happens in the end is the result of a consensus building process.
I guess what the OP meant is that in EU you might have the police knocking at your door for some reasons you don't have in the USA, not because they don't have data about you, but because in the USA you have some very strong constitutional rights that are really hard to bypass.
Twitter, Tiktok, etc could never be created in the current EU.
You might get a few more of them. Recently a bunch of French people received jail time for repeatedly posting how the president was a pedophile and his wife was a man. Because, you know, harassment is illegal in many European countries. But the only obligation by the service provider, if asked, would be to delete the posts and give the user's IP address.
The EU Digital Services Act is actually a much wider liability shield than the USA's Section 230.
I never heard of American presidents going after individuals on Twitter or other platforms. Neither Obama, nor Biden and also not Trump who is receiving so much hatred and bad words, without even touching the assassination attempt. Which is probably the only reason why they threatened to go after people, but that seems to be understandable - and I think that's the line you should not cross in a forum/platform.
The mindset is completely different.
Even during the Roman Republic people could make fun of or heavily insult politicians, and also with ugly things that we could never say today. Even Julius Caesar was mocked heavily (the famous "every woman's man and every man's woman")
...unsurprisingly, this changed when the Republic ended and the Empire started.
And here we're today thinking about our sensitive politicians :)
It exists, but it is being selectively ignored by those in charge. Don't assume it will automatically defend you, especially not pre-emptively:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jail...
https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-fire-challenges-unconst...
Is there any significant difference where the law gives you fewer rights in the EU in this regard? Speaking of knocking, it's very unlikely that in the EU some SWAT team will knock down your door because someone anonymously told them you're dangerous, kill you, and suffer no consequences.
> but because in the USA you have some very strong constitutional rights that are really hard to bypass
Other than the right to have guns, which keeps everyone happy and gives the SWAT team a legitimate reason to go in guns blazing, kill you, and get away with it, I'm having a hard time finding some right that isn't routinely subject to some exception. Guaranteed when the ultimate authority on the constitution is staffed by corrupt yes-men.
The country with the worst “bad opinion, police comes knocking” is the recently seceded UK.
And I guess Germany has something against nazism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok
And when, rarely, they do apply, you get no restitution or relief.
[PDF] https://historicalarchives.europarl.europa.eu/files/live/sit...
> Come on, do you honestly believe the NSA's echelon system isn't already reading your e-mails, and recording your phone conversations? It's all designed to frighten us so we don't complain about our rights being taken away in the name of fighting whatever boogeyman they come up with today.
Not only is the EU miles behind the US, the US is accelerating faster towards more surveillance. Historically PRISM and the US Cloud act. More recently DOGE's recent actions in centralising data and a new crop of private enterprises working on surveillance tech like CCTV facial recognition.
I don't see the federal government applying any breaks on this development. However, I note some states are. But we do see clear attempts from the EU attempt to attempt to curb this. E.g. parts of the AI Act.
While I'm not enjoying the development certain factions are pushing through in the EU either, it is hyperbole to say that the EU is attempting to make a surveillance state, especially in this context.
I know more than a few career lawyers who worked or currently work at NSA. It would blow your mind how rigidly they follow the laws and rules when it comes to US citizens.
Of course I don't expect you to believe me because "I said so" or anything like that. I can tell you definitively that when it comes to US citizens NSA is pretty neutered.
You may be thinking of the FBI...
Regulated, constrained versions of Internet are being built by governments and some large corporations, to meet their needs. While EU's constraints may look benign (even though they are not), the versions built in PRC, Russia, India, Türkyie are in various degrees openly anti-citizen. As long as citizens' needs (like privacy and unrestricted access) do not align with the ideas of the governments and corporations, we, citizens, are usually the losing side.
The fix is obvious: regulations should be liberty-preserving, and for that, governments that are better aligned with our, citizens', interests should be voted in.
And here we encounter a hard problem.
The people that govern Big Tech have said as much as that they don't believe in democracy, they show they don't believe in fair markets, and they are put to work to implement the threats of a crazy but powerful clique, attacking free and social democracies with an endless stream of sponsored garbage. If the EU had any leaders instead of weasels, they would have closed the sewers that brings lies, hate, conspiracy theories and division. If the EU does not act, it will go down, taken apart by the oligarchs.
A dilemma is a hard choice. A paradox is a principle that undermines itself when applied consistently. It doesn't "seem" like it - it is. In this case, if you stop intolerant ideas, you are no longer tolerant. That's quite simple, and Popper named it correctly as such. Now, if I put my 2c on it, the danger of this arbitrary "Tolerant except for the Anti-tolerant" idea is that, the tools you use to stop the Anti-Tolerant will one day turn around be used against the Tolerant as well, because these definitions are fluid.
When the example are "People from X are vermin" - yes this is anti-tolerant. But when "We should first create jobs for people born here"; is this anti-tolerant? It's a slippery slope where all ideas except the ruling one can be muted.
Besides, Popper isn’t a god nor is he the only one with an opinion on this problem. Rawls for instance thought that only in exceptional circumstances should intolerance be suppressed. Popper’s paradox also isn’t anything special, literally every theory of human rights can be attacked by finding specific cases in which exceptions must be made for self protection. These exceptions do not invalidate those rights nor the necessity for them.
My point is that Anti-Intolerance is the essence of Tolerance, not something outside of it.
I understand. Discussion about that should be part of a healthy society, between conformant players that respect the public democratic order. Knowing the paradox is the anti-dote against the players seeking to destroy this shared system, those that do not respect democratic boundaries, they like to play the game of taking a principle, coming up with something absurd, declaring that the principle should be understood as rigid, all to declare that the principle does not exist. Because for the few to take advantage, the many have to give up their common values.That is the big rift. And that is what I want to give this tool to the online HN reader, because the learned Rigid Beliefs only serve to destroy common principles needed for a just society. (Especially in the US context, where boolean thinking is imho very prevalent, which I see as the fruits of political marketing.) People reading about the Paradox for the first time get some proper mind frame to escape the nihilist narratives.
When you discriminate against people not born here, I would ask: why? In the case of (a), I can see how you could propose that. There might be a discussion about equal outcome or equal chance. You have a democracy and public healthy debate, you share a common society. I propose you have a debate and vote for it.In the case of (b), this would not be a discussion in my country as the constitution stipulates that everyone being in this country will be treated equally in the same circumstances, reasoning from "equal value". There is also the declaration of Human Rights. So I would say it puts a real burden on the proponent to defend why seeking inequality at the detriment of a group is justified.
Here is the goal post. Have at it.
279 more comments available on Hacker News