[fwn]

This seems like a tangent. The article isn’t about whether the ICC’s jurisdiction is valid—it's about how dependent international institutions (or anyone, really) are on US-based tech providers, and how that exposes them to US executive power, like sanctions or account blocks.

I’m not convinced that “digital sovereignty” is the right framing for this problem. What I think is more important here - and probably more interesting to HN - is the fragility introduced by technological monocultures and lack of service portability. Open protocols, interoperability, and reducing concentration risk matter more than trying to build a digitally fenced-off Europe.

[saubeidl]

I think either approach works.

China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues.

[fwn]

> China is definitely digitally fenced-off and you don't see it having these issues.

China is the textbook example of this problem. Political power in China routinely uses infrastructure to suppress or punish those who deviate from approved positions. This is precisely the risk that the article raises.

And obviously, if the ICC were to switch to Chinese infrastructure, it would just be trading one leverage for a more active one.

[pk-protect-ai]

Now this happens in US too... ICC must use its own mail servers. Actually any government or international organization must use its own infrastructure. Dependency on any 3rd party is an attack vector.

[saubeidl]

That's a separate issue. Infrastructure is never suppressed in China because somebody outside of China disapproves of a position. The sovereignty of the Chinese state is maintained.

[trod1234]

> who deviate from approved positions.

That's making it sound like those approved positions are unchanging. They constantly change, and punish those that didn't change quick enough.

The anaconda in the chandelier in a locked room of blind people.

[mathgradthrow]

Of course its a tangent. The article is trying to talk around the fact the the ICC is a unique diplomatic object wrt the US. Bringing this fact into focus in the conversation is tangential to the article because the article fails to incorporate it.

[trod1234]

> Open protocols ... concentration risk matter more...

Well it all comes down to the incentives and money. Money printing sieves money into such titans, concentrating business. You gotta look at the banking cartel before anything else.