Friday Reading Roundup #12
The Enshittification of US Power & Canada’s Dilemma
Happy Friday! Before I get into the reading roundup, here is a quick reminder that annual subscriptions to the Deep Dives newsletter are currently 20% off. Not only can you support my work, but you can get access to paid posts such as:
You can get the discount here:
With that out of the way, let’s dive in.
The Enshittification of US Power & Canada’s Dilemma
In their great piece, “The Enshittification of US Power,”
and Abe Newman make the case that much of US power is based on platforms, whether F-35 fighter jets, GPS, or the US dollar. And just as Cory Doctorow has argued that the online economy is experiencing “enshittification,” where lofty promises are discarded in favour of low-quality slop and poor user experience, the same trend is happening to US power. Indeed, “ever since Trump retook office in January […] rapid enshittification has become the organizing principle of US statecraft.”Farrell and Newman argue, “For decades, America’s allies accepted US control of these systems, because they believed in the American commitment to a ‘rules-based international order.’ They can’t persuade themselves of that any longer.”
Unfortunately, extracting yourself from an enshittified platform is hard. We’re finding that right now, as Canada decides whether to stick with F-35s. Moving away also comes with costs. Ontario’s experience highlights this, with the move to scrap a contract with Starlink meaning that there will be significant delays in bringing internet to rural and remote areas.
For Farrell and Newman:
If other governments followed suit in other domains—breaking their deep interconnections with US weapons systems, or finding alternative cloud platforms for vital government and economic services—it would mean years of economic hardship. Everyone would be poorer.
Nevertheless, countries are doing just that, with Europe going full steam ahead towards “European Digital Independence” and a EuroStack. It isn’t just at the national level, either. Many European cities and subnational governments are also moving away from American digital infrastructure towards open-source alternatives, including France’s third-largest city last month.
This is an urgent consideration. As Farrell and Newman argue, Canada is among the countries “most directly at risk from enshittification” thanks to our deep integration with the US military and technological infrastructure. Trump has also put us, along with Greenland, “at the top of his menu for territorial acquisition.”
Carney isn’t oblivious to our vulnerability or the enshittification of US power. Indeed, he is quoted in the piece as saying that “The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony.”
Yet instead of disentangling Canada from US platforms, we’re heading toward greater military integration with the “Golden Dome” missile defence program. The rapid adoption of AI in the public service will also increase reliance on US platforms.
Heidi Tworek and Alicia Wanless recently highlighted for
how US office software has a 93% market share in Canada. US companies provide 60% of our cloud computing, and the federal government already relies on Microsoft systems. These are significant vulnerabilities at a time when the US is becoming increasingly fascist and willing to use American power to punish perceived enemies.These aren’t abstract threats. Tworek and Wanless highlight how Microsoft blocked Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, from accessing his email after the US imposed sanctions on the ICC because they investigated Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
There is no reason to think that Microsoft wouldn’t do the same in Canada should Trump decide to sanction Canadian politicians or leaders. That sounds ludicrous, but is it? Faced with shutting down the Canadian government or toeing the line, we might have no choice but to follow the US lockstep.
Farrell and Newman point out that moving away from US platforms comes with costs. These could be substantial. But, as I argued a couple of weeks ago, given that we are dealing with the US as it is, not as it used to be, we need honest conversations about what sacrifices we’re willing to make. These aren’t normal times, and we shouldn’t treat them that way.
Other Reads
Canada should build public cloud infrastructure rather than relying on U.S. tech giants -
, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.In this piece, Paris Marx makes the case that “we’ve effectively allowed US companies to dominate the digital economy.” To combat this, Marx advocates for investing in a public cloud “built and run by a Crown corporation with public financing to serve government needs, but potentially to expand beyond that too.” Rather than ramping up cloud use due to AI FOMO, a public cloud would mean that “the Canadian government can build what it needs and ensure it does appropriate assessment of new technologies to see if they will actually help the public service and benefit Canadians more broadly.”
How to de-Americanize global science - João Conde, Nature.
In many ways, global science is also a US platform in the process of being enshittified, with the massive cuts to US science imperilling research everywhere. Conde argues that more countries must provide much more funding for global research and education to close that gap. Unfortunately, analysis by David Macdonald highlights that Canadian research and science is looking down the barrel of $597 million in cuts, thoroughly undercutting the increase the Tri-Councils received in Budget 2024.
Why institutional innovation matters for the future of science and technology -
& How to save bureaucracy from itself -Geoff Mulgan and James Plunkett, two Nesta alums, are must-reads if you care about state capacity and institutional innovation. These two pieces pair very nicely. In the first, Mulgan makes the case that “public institutional design is stuck and neglected,” contributing to poor outcomes in the UK. I’d very much argue that the same is true here in Canada, and we urgently need “creativity in the design of institutions to support” science and research.
In the second piece, Plunkett discusses practical steps to be more creative. There is so much in his post, and I may return to it, but I’d particularly highlight his argument that “the public sector is brittle partly because it’s bad at killing old institutions and scaling new ones.” As Plunkett argues, killing old institutions is “not about cutting for the sake of it” as the federal government is currently embarking on here, “but to clear space for rejuvenating new growth.” I also fully agree with his argument that we need more “moral agency” to shift “the culture of a bureaucracy so that people turn off autopilot and make more intentional decisions.” That aligns completely with what I’ve tried to argue about the need for normative, outcomes-focused approaches to innovation.