Around Europe, governments and institutions are seeking to reduce their use of digital services from U.S. Big Tech companies and turning to domestic or free alternatives. The push for “digital sovereignty” is gaining attention as the Trump administration strikes an increasingly belligerent posture toward the continent, highlighted by recent tensions over Greenland that intensified fears that Silicon Valley giants could be compelled to cut off access.
YSK State forced programs are bad.
It is unreasonable to expect a state to allow each and every citizen to pick and chose which program to use when communicating with them even if just a single person is involved. As soon as multiple people are supposed to all be in the same virtual room it is effectively impossible.
So what happened here is that the state changed which program(s) it “forces” you to use. Do you have a more specific point about why domestic options are supposed to be worse for that than the ones from U.S. Big Tech companies? Because if not, you don’t have a point at all.
Read the🧵 below you. My stance is the politics of enforcing this on the population. If France was smart, they would have emigrated to JitsiMeet or Jami already. But no, it wants to control more than just how video is streamed.
And then they would force you to use one of those, so your original argument “State forced == bad” still does not make any sense.
Not saying you are wrong about JitsiMeet or Jami being better choices, but that just wasn’t part of your original argument even with a very generous interpretation.
It does: With open source WebRTC implementations, you can do keyframing signatures to verify the video isn’t edited. But again, we both know what France really wants to enforce.
This isn’t that though. This is the state choosing to use different software themselves. They aren’t forcing them on anyone else.
So when I go to my French court hearing this afternoon, I am not required to use their WebRTC implementation?
How about when I need to assemble our council about an urgent issue regarding the state, do we just mumble to each other like in the olden days?
When you go to court in person you enter a state sponsored building.
When conversing with your lawyer you’re free to use whatever means if preferred to you.
I am in Japan. How exactly do I “appear in court”?
But def. saw you ignore the counsil e-meetings.
Airplane, if you really want to appear in person. Or if that’s unreasonable, your lawyer can show up in person to represent you, as has been the case for hundreds of years.
We are talking about state implemented WebRTC still, right?
No, we are talking about appearing in court. That doesn’t require any technology at all.
Like physical distance?
My point was that the court hearing is, by design, in an open forum hosted by the state. There is no supposed privacy to defend from the state. You being in a room (whether physical or digital) that is state controlled is not an issue there.
Your communications with your counsel should be private, though and that method of communication should not be breachable by the state.
So when you complain about using their facilities you are only correct in the latter sense.
wtf, no, most cases are not open.
Yeah, it is. Since the state owns the streams & recordings, they can edit and control the narratives to their wishes.
Still evading state forced counsil electronic meetings, huh.
Open to the state and journalists in any case. Nooit every case will merit journalistic interest, but they should absolutely be open.
It’s extremely problematic of the state stats doing trials behind closed doors. It’s designed that way to not have a state controlled narrative.
But it’s not problematic when the state has authority on what gets seen, how, and if real?