W Social, public institutions and the theater of European digital sovereignty

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

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.