Why I’m Reducing my Dependence on Big Tech

And why more European organisations should consider doing the same

Over the past weeks, I’ve had conversations with colleagues across public health — clients, partners, public institutions, and private organisations alike. When I mentioned that I am deliberately reducing my dependence on large US-based technology platforms, the reaction was remarkably consistent in its positivity.
Almost everyone said, “More organisations should be doing this.”
and then often added, more cautiously: “But it feels complicated, and I wouldn’t know where to start.”

That combination of agreement and hesitation is why I decided to write this.

This is not about ideology

This is not an anti-American statement, or a call for technological isolation. Many of the platforms I am moving away from are technically excellent, convenient, and have supported my work well for years.

This is, in essence, operational resilience, strategic autonomy, and long-term responsibility in a world where digital services are less and less a politically neutral infrastructure.

And recent geopolitical developments have not made my decision harder. For decades, many European organisations operated under an implicit assumption: that the United States was a stable, predictable ally, and that political tensions would not translate into direct interference with civilian digital infrastructure used by organisations, courts, or international institutions outside US jurisdiction. Recent developments suggest that this assumption deserves reassessment.

In the past year, the US government has:

• reduced or withdrawn funding from multilateral institutions such as the World Health Organization, with tangible consequences for global health coordination;

• adopted a more explicitly transactional posture toward allies;

• and, in at least one publicly reported case, required a US-based technology provider to suspend services to an individual associated with an international judicial body headquartered in Europe, following actions taken by that court (*).

These actions demonstrate that commercial digital services, when governed by foreign jurisdictions, may be subject to political or legal pressures that extend beyond their original contractual or technical intent.

For organisations whose core operations depend on uninterrupted access to email, cloud storage, identity services, or collaboration platforms, this introduces a category of risk that is neither theoretical nor unprecedented. It is a reminder that digital infrastructure is not politically neutral by default. From this perspective, reducing dependency on non-European platforms is a form of risk management and institutional due diligence — particularly relevant for organisations working in public health, research, justice, or international cooperation.

(*) Note:
Last year, Microsoft services were suspended for an individual associated with the International Court of Justice in The Hague following US sanctions related to proceedings involving the State of Israel. While interpretations differ, the incident is widely cited as an example of how geopolitical decisions can affect access to commercial digital services governed by foreign jurisdictions.
(NL Times Tuesday, 20 May 2025; Techzine 19 May 2025; AP News 12 December 2025)

The myth: “This is only for large or highly technical organisations”

A misconception is that reducing dependence on Big Tech is something only:

• large institutions,

• national governments,

• or highly specialised IT teams
  can realistically do.

I don’t think that’s true.

I run a small but complex organisation. We collaborate internationally, work with sensitive data, coordinate with external partners, and rely on digital infrastructure every day. In that sense, our setup reflects the reality of many modern European organisations: lean teams, high expectations, and limited tolerance for downtime or disruption.

Yes, I am reasonably comfortable with IT. But comfort is not omniscience. What made this transition feasible was not deep technical mastery, but deciding to approach it incrementally, with realistic expectations and support.

Why this matters — especially in public health

In public health, digital infrastructure is not a neutral backdrop. It directly affects:

• how we communicate during crises,

• how data is stored, accessed, and shared,

• how international collaborations function,

• and how resilient organisations are under pressure.

Over time, convenience can quietly turn into dependency. And dependency reduces room for manoeuvre — precisely when flexibility matters most.

What turned out to be harder — and easier — than expected

Harder than expected:

• Letting go of “all-in-one” convenience.

• Accepting that some workflows need to be redesigned.

• Unlearning habits built around default platforms.

Easier than expected:

• Finding capable European alternatives.

• Migrating in phases rather than all at once.

• Maintaining continuity during the transition.

• Getting help — from providers, documentation, and AI-assisted support.

And I found that instead of technical, the biggest challenge was psychological.

The real barrier is confidence, not capability

Many organisations already have enough technical capacity to begin this transition — yet seem to lack confidence. The fear of “breaking something important” is real and understandable.

What helped me most was reframing the process: this is not a one-time migration, but an ongoing investment in digital resilience.

You don’t need to replace everything. You don’t need a perfect architecture. You need:

• clear priorities,

• an understanding of which dependencies are truly critical,

• and the willingness to learn as you go.

European alternatives are easier to find than many expect

One practical question colleagues ask me is: “Even if I wanted to reduce dependence on US platforms — where would I find the alternatives?”

A resource I have found genuinely helpful is

https://european-alternatives.eu

. It offers a clear, searchable overview of European-based alternatives to commonly used American technology services, categorised by function and transparency criteria.

Using resources like this, it quickly becomes apparent that Europe already offers mature, production-ready options in many key areas, including:

• Email and calendars: Proton (Switzerland)

• Cloud storage and collaboration: Nextcloud (Germany), Hetzner Storage Share

• Office productivity: LibreOffice, OnlyOffice (Latvia)

• Creative software: Affinity (UK-based origin, local-first tools)

• Video conferencing: Jitsi (EU-hostable, open source)

Not every alternative is a drop-in replacement, and trade-offs exist. But the idea that there are no viable European options is increasingly outdated.

Digital autonomy as risk management

I am not arguing that every organisation must immediately abandon all US-based platforms. But I am suggesting that continued, unexamined dependence on them now constitutes a material business and governance risk — particularly for organisations whose work touches public interest, health, justice, or international cooperation.

It is about restoring balance. Start pragmatically:

• Map your critical dependencies,

• Identify which services would cripple your organisation if withdrawn,

• Prioritise European alternatives where feasible,

• and treat digital autonomy as risk mitigation.

This is a beginning

This article attempts to explain why, for me, reassessing digital dependencies has become a rational and timely decision.

As a follow-up, I intend to publish a series of shorter, practical notes reflecting on specific transitions, including:

• moving from Google services to Proton,

• replacing Microsoft Office workflows with LibreOffice and OnlyOffice,

• shifting from Adobe Creative Cloud to Affinity,

• and integrating European cloud infrastructure into daily operations.

These notes will focus on what worked, what didn’t, and what I would do differently — without assuming specialist knowledge, and without presenting any single path as universally applicable.

Digital autonomy begins with a decision — and the willingness to learn.