> Doing it in a way that won't invite retaliation from the US Gov (which seems more and more like the PR arm of US big tech) is even trickier.

You mean the US government working towards the interests of its people and economy? Which government wouldn't? It's kinda what we want it to do.

▲

plufz 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t want my government to be a corporate controlled army for the big corps in my country.

▲

thesmtsolver2 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Didn’t you read the memo? Only European govts or China can act in the interests of their people and companies but if the US does that it is immoral.

▲

simondotau 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with what you’re inferring. But that said, there’s a valid argument to be had that—for some things—your own government is a unique threat that other people’s governments are not, or less so.

I’m Australian, and if I was worried about the practical legal risk of being tracked online by a government, it’s mostly concern about my own. A foreign friendly government is mid tier: it’s unlikely that five eyes is an intel firehouse. A foreign hostile government is probably safer if you’re committing domestic crimes.

▲

lukan 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

One difference is, EU or China don't act as global hegemon and claim to promote freedom, democracy and free markets for everyone.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 4 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> EU or China don't act as global hegemon France has global geopolitical projects, as does China in South America, Central Asia and Africa. Both export arms into conflicts and conduct global intelligence operations.
	▲	ExoticPearTree 7 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> free markets for everyone should read as "everyone the US likes", not everyone everyone.