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.
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.