Comment by Fnoord
12 days ago
If my choice is an American company which does tracking, and a European company which does tracking, then I as European prefer the European one. Because they can be held accountable in a court of law. In Russia or China, that isn't the case. And it doesn't seem like it remains the case in USA. SCOTUS, for example, has been a political instrument for a long, long time.
As an European I'd be rather tracked by an American (out Chinese, Russian, ...) company than by an EU or European regimes.
Those companies are less likely to imprison or censor me than the regime who rules over Europe.
European citizens under US sanctions are being erased economically and socially within the EU. This is not to mention the systemic dismantling of the ICC at an individual level. The US has sanctioned six ICC judges this year, along with the court’s chief prosecutor and two deputy prosecutors.
Prior to Trump, most of the ~15,000 individuals on the US sanctions list were members of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Mafia, or warlords and despot leaders of authoritarian regimes.
The state department justification relates either to their roles in the Afghanistan investigation or them facilitating the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity. As a result they now can't book a hotel, use credit cards or access everyday services. As Nicolas Guillou says 'You are effectively blacklisted by much of the world's banking system'
As the Le Monde article concludes, while it is the prerogative of the US government to exercise sovereignty on its own territory, it is unacceptable, however, that European citizens – some of them above any suspicion in the eyes of their own authorities – lose everything at home due to excessive caution on the part of European companies in relation to spiteful US foreign policy.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2025/07/26/europea...
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2025/12/12/its-surreal-u...
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/11/19/n...
The ICC sanctions are targeted (and only a couple of people), but they prove it can be applied to anyone, without merit and without due process. This is also why Europe needs to get rid of their dependence on Visa/Mastercard.
Also, if companies serve their customers, governments serve their civilians. If you want to argue bad faith, governments serve national interest, while companies serve themselves, and ultimately the jurisdiction they fall under. What do you think better aligns with my interests as a Dutch person: the interests of the Dutch government, or the interests of the United States government? Do you believe Google will best serve me as a Dutch person, or the US government?
All the arguments about 'European government bad' assume bad faith. They discount we have some of the most democratic, liberal governments in existence. Unlike countries such as Russia, China, and even the United States. But the only government (apart from a State such as California) which consistently protected civilian rights online is the EU, a couple of European countries, and some other ones in the free West (Canada, I am not sure about Japan and South Korea).
They also used Magnitsky law to prevent Brazilian judges to have any bank account it credit card. Just because America didn't like their decisions.
> As a result they now can't book a hotel, use credit cards or access everyday services. As Nicolas Guillou says 'You are effectively blacklisted by much of the world's banking system'
Totally agree that this is absurd and disportionate, especially as a consequence of a US decision.
I mean, it's one thing to sanction a foreign billionaire: freezing their assets, thus preventing them from wielding their power in our borders is perfectly reasonable... But for a normal citizen living within your borders, freezing everything and preventing them from working is disenfranchising them and denying them all personal property rights (without judicial process!)
There are a bunch of examples of people in Europe who have also been sanctioned because of their political work. The first two that come to mind:
- Hüseyin Dogru https://theleftberlin.com/red-media-hueseyin-dogru/
- Nathalie Yamb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathalie_Yamb
If we're moving away from USA tech, I hope that we're not blindly trusting stuff simply being hosted in EU, but rather use the opportunity to spread our eggs in more jurisdiction baskets (rather than only the EU basket)
2 replies →
Yes, no imprisonment or censorship happening in the us.
That's really not the point they were making.
You are much more likely to be repressed/harrassed/arrested by your local government than a foreign government. So a local government knowing your behavior is more likely to lead to bad consequences than a foreign government knowing.
Of course, that might change in the future. Hypothetical example, the US government bans you from using any US cloud services because of what you did in private.
Though that's not exactly exclusive to governments either, Google banning you from GMail and Google Docs because of your YouTube uploads is already a thing.
There is certainly plenty of retaliation happening against non-compliant speech and people. The federal government has been used as a weapon against pro Palestinian activists, people are being imprisoned by Ice on the day of their citizenship ceremony, "enemy" officials like Leticia James face politically motivated investigations, universities are being bullied into ideological compliance and on and on.
They need to follow the law such as GDPR. American companies have to as well, but if they won't, will they be held accountable? Or will there be even more sanctions?
[dead]