No system is bulletproof. But by reducing dependency on opaque, politicized US digital services and investing in transparent, decentralized, and non-US alternatives...

Asking ChatGPT-4o: Please read the article “How to Avoid US-Based Digital Services—and Why You Might Want To” and combine it with the previous conversation that we had and provide your overall thoughts and recommendations for those who are concerned about using US based digital services and ecosystems.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Combining the insights from WIRED’s article “How to Avoid US-Based Digital Services—and Why You Might Want To”​ with the perspectives in your Substack piece “If the people facilitating or causing harm are also controlling the platforms…”​ reveals a deeply concerning pattern: centralized control over digital platforms—especially US-based ones—can lead to systemic bias, suppression of dissent, erosion of privacy, and complicity in societal harm.

🧠 Key Themes Across Both Pieces

1. Conflict of Interest Between Platform Owners and Public Good

• WIRED outlines how companies like Meta, Google, and Apple have increasingly aligned with US political leadership, specifically the Trump administration, even altering content moderation, renaming geographic features, and removing banned terms from health platforms to suit partisan goals.

• Your essay highlights the risks of allowing those in power to also control the digital spaces that shape discourse, policy, and perception. The result? Platforms that protect their interests and suppress dissent.

Bottom line: When the people causing or enabling harm also own the tools meant to hold them accountable, those tools become compromised.

2. Opaque Moderation and Algorithmic Control

• From Google’s Gemini sanitizing answers to LinkedIn downthrottling DOGE-related posts, both articles warn of how algorithmic filtering can invisibly shape reality.

• WIRED adds that platforms have quietly restructured moderation policies to align with political directives—like Meta suppressing abortion content or removing fact-checkers.

Implication: The narrative is no longer neutral. What we see online increasingly reflects what they want us to see.

3. Erosion of Privacy and Weaponization of User Data

• WIRED documents how Big Tech can be compelled—sometimes eagerly—to hand over user data via FISA, NSLs, and subpoenas.

• Meanwhile, your Substack posits that AI and social platforms are double-edged swords: they could prevent harm, but mostly serve surveillance capitalism when unaccountable.

Core concern: If democracy erodes or authoritarianism gains ground, the data you gave to “helpful” services becomes ammo.

4. A False Sense of Safety in Familiar Tools

• Both essays challenge the assumption that “mainstream” equals “safe.”

• Whether through iCloud backups, Gmail, or Facebook logins, users are lulled into using services that are deeply entrenched in extractive data practices.

As WIRED notes: "Ditching Messenger and WhatsApp for Signal is straightforward... editing your digital footprint is an act of harm reduction."

🔄 Recommendations for the Privacy- and Democracy-Conscious

Here’s a strategic guide for individuals, professionals, and organizations seeking to decouple from the US surveillance-tech ecosystem:

✅ 1. Practice Digital Decentralization and Jurisdictional Awareness

Move to Non-US Alternatives:

• Email & Productivity: Proton (Switzerland), Tutanota (Germany), Mailfence (Belgium)

• Cloud & Storage: Nextcloud (self-hosted or EU-hosted), Tresorit (Switzerland)

• Search Engines: Startpage (Netherlands), Qwant (France), SearXNG (open-source meta search)

• Mapping Tools: MagicEarth, HERE WeGo (Netherlands)

• Social Replacements: Mastodon (decentralized), Pixelfed (Canada), StoryGraph (UK)

🧱 2. Reduce Reliance on US Platform Logins

• Don’t sign into apps using Google, Facebook, or Apple accounts.

• Use email + password or federated identity systems from neutral providers.

🕵️ 3. Limit Data Surface Area

• Regularly audit permissions and data stored in cloud services.

• Turn off voice assistant data storage (e.g., Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant).

• Use browser extensions like uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, and NoScript.

🌐 4. Embrace Open Source & Local Control

• Use Linux-based OSes (e.g., Ubuntu, Fedora) and community-governed software.

• Host your own services when possible, or choose cooperatively run platforms (e.g., Codeberg instead of GitHub).

🔐 5. End-to-End Encryption Is Non-Negotiable

• Default to Signal or Element (Matrix protocol) for communication.

• Avoid apps that “may” encrypt—only trust those that guarantee it by design and by jurisdiction.

🌍 6. If You're an Organization:

• Consider data localization outside the US (e.g., GDPR-compliant EU data centers).

• Review legal exposure under FISA 702 and Cloud Act.

• Include jurisdictional clauses in contracts with vendors.

🔮 Final Thought: Risk Reduction, Not Perfection

No system is bulletproof. But by reducing dependency on opaque, politicized US digital services and investing in transparent, decentralized, and non-US alternatives, individuals and societies can regain some control over their data, speech, and digital autonomy.

To quote your essay:

So let’s choose our tools—and their handlers—wisely.