W Social, public institutions and the theater of European digital sovereignty
A new EU-focused social network called W Social is drawing criticism for being a closed-source, for‑profit platform heavily promoted to European politicians under the banner of “digital sovereignty.” Commenters contrast it with open, federated alternatives like Mastodon and the non-profit Eurosky stack, arguing that public institutions are ignoring more transparent, technically mature options in favor of something launched with political connections and World Economic Forum visibility. Concerns center on grift, privacy-invasive identity verification, weak security, and the risk that “sovereignty” rhetoric is masking protectionism and control rather than serving citizens’ interests.
Overall reception of W Social
- Many see W Social as “shady” or low‑effort: closed source, for‑profit, with unclear business model beyond eventual ads and paid features.
- Launch at Davos/WEF and heavy promotion on public broadcasters and by EU politicians are viewed as red flags and more like marketing than journalism.
- Several liken it to an “EU Truth Social” or “politicians’ clubhouse” rather than a citizen‑centric network, expecting restricted criticism and sycophantic replies.
Identity, privacy, and technical concerns
- Onboarding and “human verification” are seen as excessive: multi‑step app install, PIN, biometrics/passport scan, selfie, and linking via QR codes.
- Some worry this normalizes digital IDs and concentrates sensitive personal data in a private company.
- Claims it is “not built with proper cryptography” and has poor security practices (e.g., no XSS protection) are mentioned.
- Reports of heavy CPU use and odd UI behavior (e.g., scrollbar hijacking) add to a sense of amateurism.
EU digital sovereignty, politics, and grift
- Several argue “sovereignty” is being used as a protectionist or rent‑seeking label, with public money flowing to well‑connected but weak projects.
- Suspicions of lobbying, marketing, and potential corruption appear frequently; some see this as typical of EU digital programs.
- Frustration that EU institutions ignore open, EU‑based projects while elevating W Social is common.
Alternatives and protocol debates
- Eurosky (AT Protocol, non‑profit, EU‑hosted) and mu.social (built on that stack) are cited as aligned with transparency and sovereignty, yet largely overlooked by media and politicians.
- Mastodon/ActivityPub is defended as genuinely social, non‑algorithmic, and already widely used (including by European entities), but criticized for:
- Weak search and tagging for discovery.
- “Paradox of choice” around instance selection and fears of instance admins deleting data.
- Bluesky/AT Protocol is praised by some for:
- Account portability via personal data servers (PDS).
- Separation of hosting and “appviews” (aggregators), and good UX.
- Others argue any new closed, centralized platform (including W Social) repeats the “you are the product” pattern and suggest either Mastodon or leaving social media altogether.
Open source and licensing issues
- W Social briefly hid its GitHub code, then made it visible again; discussion notes that for MIT/Apache‑licensed components, closing future development is legal, but prior open versions remain re‑distributable.
- This reinforces distrust that “open” projects can be pivoted into closed, profit‑driven platforms.