About W social media

On the EU institution choosing W

I have a divergent view about it. I read a lot of posts and blogs blaming W for being another X and not transparent, starting as open and falling into a closed social platform where we can't see what and who is behind it.

I get it.

And now, all the EU institutions are choosing W instead of Eurosky (where I am, by the way).

My point is this: the aim of the EU is an independent digital environment (independent from the US and Chinese ones), and to achieve this, the main topic is funding.

Funding is the most difficult part for an EU tech giant that wants to rival US and Chinese consolidated competitors.

It can’t rely only on public funding, nor can it be an open-source platform that survives on "buy me a coffee".

If we want, as Europeans, to create digital giants able to compete with Meta and other US/Chinese tech companies, we need them to make money. A lot of money.

Are we willing to accept paying expensive memberships to access an EU social media (which probably will never be as big and powerful as the US ones)? I can’t see this happening.

But most of us don’t want to buy a coffee for anyone, and we (were) are very, very happy to give our data for free to FB, IS, or TT.

Therefore, an EU tech company has to use our data exactly as US or Chinese companies do. Ok, maybe better.

Of course, we can ask for a transparent way of using our data, even more so than what is already regulated by the GDPR; and transparency on funding.

What about asking W to share the profits made with our data? 😁 Is that sustainable enough?

On the W Identity

The other controversial point about W is the necessity to be a verified user to access the social media. You can also post anonymously on the platform, but still, you can't be a bot, and you can be a hater if you like, but only up to the point where you don’t harm anyone.

Nowadays, it seems that at least 20% of what is on the social media is generated by bots (much more than 50% on X), which are probably controlled by the usual villains. And we all know how powerful this can be when it touches political or inclusion topics. Just look at what happened with Brexit, or what Musk did with X in the USA for Trump’s election: you have money, you can buy your presence online, you win.

Moreover, many people have killed themselves because of shitstorms or hatestorms: you can just check the media.

So, from my point of view, it’s a good thing that those who write or interact can be found if they do something illegal or harmful. Anarchy is not freedom; it is chaos. We need rules, and we need people to take responsibility fore their actions online.

The plus of an EU platform is the set of rules that protect our freedom of speech. And I’m sorry, I’m not a complotist: I’ll be a revolutionary against the EU the moment I see it diverging into an authoritarian institution, which it is not at the moment (... lets see about this 😐).

I bet the EU’s aim is to create a centralized ID verification system to be used by those who want to "live" in a controlled social media where you can be more protected from haters and shitstorms, not to mention pedopornography. It will grant age-restricted access to content for our kids (at least we can try to protect them).

The other answer can’t just be "whatever, let’s go anarchy!".

... right! Freedom of choice!

Anyway, I haven’t seen anyone pushing people to join W instead of Eurosky. That’s the beauty of ATProto: you can move your presence (and personal data) wherever you feel more comfortable.

You can also open your own server, pretty much like Mastodon, but not exactly in the same way.

You can choose between open, close, European, global.

So, what’s the problem if someone wants more control over their feed? If you don’t want it, just stay out of W.

How would you create a European social media platform that aims to be without fake news, bots, and respectful of its users?