For a quarter of a century, the global conversation on regulating technology has hit the same wall. According to author and activist Cory Doctorow, who began working with the Electronic Frontier Foundation 25 years ago, officials worldwide would agree on the best regulatory approach, only to conclude: "we can't do it." The reason? The formidable threat of US trade retaliation.
The End of a Coercive Bargain
The longstanding deterrent was simple and brutal. The US trade representative made it clear that if a country passed tech regulations favouring its own citizens and industries, it would face crippling tariffs. This dynamic forced nations to accept a lopsided deal: stifle their own tech sectors and allow US companies to extract data and wealth, in exchange for tariff-free access to the American market.
Doctorow argues that former President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff policies have shattered this old bargain. By imposing tariffs regardless of compliance, the US has undermined its own threat. "If someone demands that you follow their orders or they'll burn your house down, so you do, and they burn your house down anyway … well, you're a bit of a fool if you keep on doing what they tell you," he writes. This rupture creates a pivotal opportunity.
Britain's Unique Post-Brexit Position
The core of the problem, Doctorow explains, is article 6 of the European software directive of 2001, which restricts reverse engineering. This "anti-circumvention" law, adopted under US pressure, prevents programmers from modifying devices and software, even in legal ways, if the manufacturer objects. It locks users into what he calls the "prix fixe meal" of tech: to use Meta, you accept surveillance; to use an iPhone, you pay Apple's 30% cut; to use Google, you surrender privacy.
Here, Brexit offers the UK a distinct advantage. Unlike EU member states, Britain can unilaterally strike article 6 from its statute books without waiting for bloc-wide reform. This move could unleash a wave of innovation, allowing British firms to "disenshittify" defective US products and compete directly with their lucrative, rent-seeking business models.
"As Jeff Bezos told publishers when he founded Amazon: 'Your margin is my opportunity,'" Doctorow notes. "Why shouldn't we move fast and break Jeff's things?" He positions this as a more viable economic strategy than pouring resources into a loss-making AI sector, one that could generate hundreds of billions without straining water and power grids.
A Broad Coalition for Digital Rights
The push for change now has potential allies beyond digital activists. Investors and technologists see a chance to profit by challenging US tech monopolies. Simultaneously, national security hawks are questioning the reliability of American tech infrastructure after incidents like the International Criminal Court being "bricked" when its Microsoft accounts were cut off following US sanctions.
Doctorow points to the weaponisation potential, citing how John Deere remotely disabled stolen tractors. The inability to reverse-engineer and replace proprietary code in everything from cloud software to Chinese solar inverters leaves nations vulnerable. Repealing anti-circumvention laws is framed as essential for digital sovereignty.
While the door is only "open a crack," Doctorow concludes it's the most promising opening in decades. The convergence of Trump's tariffs, Brexit, investor interest, and security concerns creates a rare moment where the campaign to reclaim control over our technology—and end its enshittification—could finally gain decisive traction.
