Skip to main content


Amazing. W (I kid you not): A bunch of VC-funded European Big Tech assholes attempting to rewrite history by erasing the federated European alternatives that already exist to create their own centralised, surveillance-ridden X clone.

Same shit, different flag.

And I’m sure the usual fools will flock to it the moment it’s ready.

Fuck these people.

#EU #bullshit #W #BigTech #surveillance #capitalism #peopleFarming @nicolasvivant colter.social/@nicolasvivant/1…

reshared this

in reply to Aral Balkan

eh, in reality, most of the federated platforms came in responses or alternatives to closed ones, for example, you can compare when was Mastodon born & when was Twitter
but yeah, they are becoming worse & worse each day, I am using fb since 2008 and if you compare what I remember with the current state, you'll seriously question why all Tunisians are there, well, most of them anyway
This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to Aral Balkan

Truly regarded 🤣

Unfortunately they seem to be Swedes?

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to Aral Balkan

when will non-techies learn the answer to Big Tech is not MORE Big Tech

its like reaching for another pair of soiled underpants

in reply to ★ NORMIE ★ 🛠️ ★ 🇺🇸

For some people, the problem with hypercapitalist American Surveillance State Big Tech is the American part.
in reply to Aral Balkan

I love how they don't know how to configure a webserver (i.e. setup www.wsocial.eu to redirect properly)
in reply to Aral Balkan

these guys spin the faults of US big tech into some sort of nationalist, "patriotic" tale about how europe is inherently superior. it's annoying because it's never been a matter of that.
in reply to Aral Balkan

they're keen not to mention any fediverse competitor, the only real alternative.
in reply to Aral Balkan

They definitely were talking notes from #Bluesky Jay Graber's disingenuous 'decentralized' charm offensive.
in reply to Mastodon Migration

@mastodonmigration I checked it and the company is actually registered in Sweden. It’s amazing that they think they can attract regular people with a “top-bottom”-approach by first courting tech companies and LinkedIn peeps . At least bluesky started with the furries and lgbtqia+ people
in reply to DoktorZjivago

@mastodonmigration The stock is worth €2500 approximately, which is the absolute lowest amount you need to go in with in order to get the approval to start a private company in Sweden lol
in reply to Aral Balkan

here is a picture of W Social's CEO on LinkedIn. "Make Europe Great Again"
This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)

reshared this

in reply to FediThing

@FediThing @fedi I don't understand - why are we hating a European tech startup here? Have I missed something? Surely we want more EU startups?
in reply to David T.

No, we want European infrastructure to be controlled by ordinary Europeans, not multinational corporations.

VC startups are only set up to be sold out to the highest bidder, which is usually outside Europe. VCs don't care what happens to their startup, they just want to sell out and get the money.

Other problems with W are:
-They're using fascist phrases and clothing
-They're erasing Mastodon from history
-They're centralised with all the problems that brings (list of them at fedi.tips/why-is-the-fediverse… ).

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to FediThing

@FediThing @fedi I hear you, the reason the US is so successful in building that infrastructure that we're all now so hooked on and deeply embedded within though is because of VC startups - I don't think governments and institutions have the risk appetite for stuff like this. Besides, do you think W creators would have instead worked on infrastructure if not for this? I don't think so personally. We can have both!
in reply to David T.

The purpose of connecting people isn't to make money, it's to provide vital infrastructure.

VCs are the wrong vehicle for vital infrastructure.

Look at the sheer scale of electoral interference through Meta and Twitter/X. Musk especially is using Twitter/X to promote fascists.

These are failures, they are failing society and even getting people killed ( theguardian.com/technology/202… ).

"I don't think governments and institutions have the risk appetite for stuff like this. "

The costs of building something like the Fediverse are absolutely tiny (some prices for scale: masto.host/pricing ).

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to FediThing

@FediThing @fedi I don't disagree with that. I just don't see how that means we have to discourage EU VC funded or even bootstrapped startups. I think we can and should encourage both.
in reply to David T.

@davidt @fedi
The incentives for VCs are all wrong on social media and internet services, the ownership structure inevitably leads to "enshittification" as @pluralistic has documented in great detail.

They provide a wonderful service to hook people in, then once people are locked in they degrade the service to the point where it's much worse and more expensive than the original alternatives.

We don't need VCs to be controlling things, they misuse that control.

in reply to FediThing

@FediThing @fedi @pluralistic if you want adoption unfortunately I think it needs some level of centralisation just based on how humans interact to be honest - if you want full decentralisation then we have it in the fediverse, but we just won't get the adoption. Not sure there's a perfect solution to be honest.
in reply to David T.

The telephone network is decentralised, as is the email network and the postal network. When it existed, the telegraph networks were also decentralised. You don't need one corporation controlling everything for global networks to connect together.

Even Facebook and Google used to use a decentralised messaging standard called XMPP that allowed people outside the network to message their members, but they decided to abandon this for commercial reasons. Goverments could have easily forced them to continue.

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to David T.

@davidt @FediThing @fedi When it comes to social media we don't want just another people farming operation, which VC-funded social media inevitably turns into because they have to pay the piper. We're literally having this conversation on a better model.
in reply to woe2you

@woe2you @FediThing @fedi I agree! I do think centralisation is what helps adoption (just based on the evidence thus far). I am not convinced social media in any form (including this) is healthy for humans. We aren't designed for this level of inputs all the time. Our brains are always scanning for threats and social media is a constant influx of potential threats!
in reply to David T.

@davidt @woe2you @fedi
"I am not convinced social media in any form (including this) is healthy for humans."

Ah well that's another issue, I'd tend to agree with you on that one. It is maybe an even more difficult problem to solve!

in reply to Aral Balkan

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to Fabio Manganiello

@fabio And it seems like they are going to rely on AI for moderation/filtering and will not ban accounts. I guess fascist would be ok.

The clip where the CEO say they won't ban people youtube.com/clip/UgkxOqOEys_yr…

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to Aral Balkan

in fairness to them, Frontex and the terfs in the European Parliament would cause any server like that to be defederated anyway