So. About W Social.

I need to issue a correction, though calling it a "correction" feels slightly unfair to myself. It's more like I got hit by a silver bullet of unfortunate timing. Let me explain.

About a day ago, I published what I thought was a fairly well-researched rant about W Social. I'd spent time thinking about it, writing it up, formatting it in Leaflet, the whole nine yards. I felt confident. I felt informed. I felt ready to contribute meaningfully to the conversation about European digital independence and the state of decentralised social media.

My central technical claim was that W Social was not AT Protocol-based – that it was yet another platform trying to reinvent what we already have, just with European political backing.

Then I decided to watch

@iame.li

's stream on stream.place.

For those who don't know, stream.place is an AT Protocol-based streaming platform – basically Twitch, but decentralised and built on the same infrastructure as the rest of the Atmosphere. Eli (iame.li) is known as "the stream.place guy" – he's the lead developer, and his streams are a cornerstone of the ATmosphere tech community.

So there I was, settling in to watch some good tech discussion on a platform that perfectly demonstrates what decentralised infrastructure can do. And then it happened.

Eli started reading my post at my request. Out loud. To his audience. My words, in his voice, being broadcast to viewers.

At first, I felt a weird sort of pride. Someone was reading my work! In public! This is what you want as a writer, right? Your ideas being shared, discussed, amplified. On stream.place, no less – a platform that embodies the very principles I was arguing for.

Then, about ten minutes later, the news broke.

During the stream. Live. While I was watching.

W Social is based on the AT Protocol.

The information came through via leaked screenshots, community sources, technical documentation that hadn't been in the official presentation. And there I was, watching in real-time as my confidently-published post became outdated.

To Eli's credit, he was gentle with the correction. He didn't dunk on me or make me feel stupid. He just noted the new information, acknowledged that I couldn't have known this from the official announcement, and moved on. Professional, kind, exactly what you'd want from someone in his position.

But still. The timing.

I wasn't wrong because I was careless or lazy. I was wrong because I was early. I published based on the information available – the World Economic Forum presentation, the press releases, the political framing. None of that mentioned AT Protocol. None of it talked about decentralisation in technical terms. It was all European sovereignty and digital independence in the abstract.

I hit publish too soon. Got hit by a silver bullet of timing. The news broke during the very stream where my post was being read aloud.

The feeling was remarkably similar to being denounced by a town crier in a medieval village square. "Hear ye, hear ye! Let it be known that Ewan, who published a lengthy manifesto mere hours ago, has been overtaken by breaking news! Let all who pass witness this correction!"

Except instead of a village square, it was stream.place. And instead of a town crier, it was the stream.place guy himself. And instead of being able to slink away into the crowd, I was sitting there watching it happen in real-time, on my own screen, with my own ears, on a platform that perfectly demonstrates the values I was defending.

Mortifying doesn't quite cover it.

What I Got Wrong (And Why That Makes Me Angrier)

Let me be absolutely clear: I stated that W Social was not AT Protocol-based. I framed much of my argument around the idea that W was trying to build yet another protocol, yet another platform, yet another walled garden – just with a European flag draped over it.

According to the information that emerged during that stream and has been circulating since – leaked screenshots, technical documentation, community sources – W is actually built on the AT Protocol. It's part of the Atmosphere. It's using the same decentralised infrastructure that I spent paragraphs praising in my original post.

So I was wrong about the technical foundation.

But here's what makes me genuinely angry: the official World Economic Forum presentation in Davos completely failed to mention this.

They announced W Social at the WEF. At Davos. At one of the most exclusive gatherings of global elites on the planet. And in that presentation, they talked about European digital independence, they talked about sovereignty, they talked about building something new.

They did not mention that it's built on the AT Protocol.

They did not mention decentralisation.

They did not mention that the infrastructure they're using is the same open protocol that already exists, that developers are already building on, that users are already using.

Why not? Why announce a supposedly groundbreaking platform for European digital independence and not mention the single most important technical detail – that it's built on genuinely decentralised, open infrastructure?

If I missed this information, it's because they didn't present it. The official announcement focused on politics and positioning, not on the technical reality. And that's not a small oversight – it's a fundamental misrepresentation of what they're actually doing.

I got caught out by timing, yes. The information wasn't publicly available when I published. But I also got caught out by the fact that the people announcing this platform apparently thought the AT Protocol foundation wasn't worth mentioning to a Davos audience.

That's on them, not on me.

What Still Stands (And Why I'm Actually Angrier Now)

Here's the thing: while I got the technical foundation wrong due to timing, my core argument doesn't just stand – it's actually stronger now that I know W is AT Protocol-based.

Because if W is built on the AT Protocol, then the World Economic Forum presentation was even more dishonest than I thought. They had the opportunity to showcase genuinely decentralised infrastructure to a global audience, to demonstrate that European digital independence can be built on open protocols rather than walled gardens.

And they just... didn't mention it.

Let me break down what I still believe to be true, and why some of it matters even more now:

The Name Is Still Terrible

W is still a stupid name. This hasn't changed. It's still impossible to search for, still confusing, still suffers from the same single-letter terminal stupidity as X. The fact that it's built on AT Protocol doesn't make the branding any better.

If anything, it makes it worse. You've got this incredible protocol – decentralised, cryptographically verifiable, genuinely innovative – and you're marketing it with a name that looks like a keyboard mash. It's like building a Ferrari and calling it "F". Technically impressive, terrible marketing.

And unlike X, which is at least rebranding an existing platform with name recognition, W is launching from scratch with a name that will be impossible for anyone to discover organically. Good luck searching for "W" without getting ten million irrelevant results.

The Davos Presentation Was Worse Than I Thought

I was already skeptical about announcing a supposedly grassroots, decentralised social network at the World Economic Forum. The optics of launching "digital independence" at one of the most exclusive gatherings of global elites felt deeply ironic.

But now that I know W is built on AT Protocol, the Davos presentation feels actively dishonest.

Why did they not mention the protocol?

This is not a minor technical detail. This is the entire point. If you're building on AT Protocol, you're building on infrastructure that's already decentralised, already open, already enabling exactly the kind of digital sovereignty they claim to want.

But they presented it like a new platform. A new initiative. A European answer to American tech dominance. They framed it in nationalist terms, in political terms, in abstract terms about sovereignty and independence.

They did not say: "We're launching a new node in an existing decentralised network. We're building on the AT Protocol, which already enables data portability, identity sovereignty, and freedom from platform lock-in. We're demonstrating that European institutions can participate in genuinely open infrastructure."

Why not? Why hide the most important fact about what you're building?

The EU Already Does Decentralised Social Media

And here's what makes this even more absurd: the European Union already runs a Mastodon instance.

Yes, that's right. The EU operates ec.social-network.europa.eu – a Mastodon server on the ActivityPub protocol. It's been running since at least 2022. European Commission officials use it. It's public. It's federated. It's genuinely decentralised.

So the EU already has direct, institutional experience with decentralised social media. They already participate in an open protocol. They already understand – or should understand – how federation works, how identity portability works, how you can participate in a global network while maintaining institutional control over your own infrastructure.

And yet, at the World Economic Forum presentation about W Social, they mentioned neither AT Protocol nor ActivityPub.

They didn't say: "We've been running our own Mastodon instance for years on ActivityPub, and now we're expanding our participation in decentralised social infrastructure by also supporting AT Protocol through W Social."

They didn't acknowledge that decentralised social media already exists and that European institutions already use it.

They didn’t even mention that W is just a Bluesky social-app fork.

They presented W as if it's solving a problem that hasn't been solved, as if European digital independence requires building something new, as if they're pioneering a path that others have been walking for years.

Why?

The EU Commission already knows how to run decentralised social infrastructure. They're literally doing it right now. Why pretend W is breaking new ground?

I can think of a few explanations:

• The people presenting at Davos don't know about their own Mastodon instance. Which would be embarrassing but not impossible – institutional knowledge doesn't always flow between departments.

• They know about ActivityPub but don't want to acknowledge it. Perhaps because Mastodon has a certain political reputation, or because they want W to seem novel rather than just another option in an existing ecosystem.

• They're deliberately avoiding technical details. The Davos audience might not care about protocols, so they focused on political framing and sovereignty rhetoric instead.

• They don't actually understand what decentralisation means. They understand it as "European servers" rather than as "open protocols that enable genuine portability and federation."

None of these options reflect well on the presentation.

If you're the European Union, and you already run decentralised social media infrastructure, and you're announcing a new platform built on a different decentralised protocol, that's actually a great story. It shows you're protocol-agnostic, that you understand decentralisation, that you're willing to participate in multiple ecosystems rather than picking one winner.

But you have to actually tell that story.

Instead, they presented W as if decentralised European social media is a new concept, when they've been doing it with ActivityPub for years.

It's honestly bizarre. They have proof that European institutions can successfully operate in decentralised networks. They have evidence that open protocols work. They have their own experience to draw on.

And they just... didn't mention any of it.

What This Tells Us About Their Priorities

When you don't mention that your platform is built on AT Protocol, and you also don't mention that your institution already runs infrastructure on ActivityPub, you're making a choice about what you think matters.

You're saying that the branding matters more than the technology.

You're saying that the political narrative matters more than the technical reality.

You're saying that appearing to build something new matters more than acknowledging what already works.

The EU Commission's Mastodon instance on ActivityPub is genuinely impressive. It's proof that European institutions can operate in decentralised networks. It's evidence that open protocols are viable for institutional use. It's a model that other governments and organisations should follow.

And they just... ignored it. Didn't even mention it while presenting a platform built on a different open protocol.

That tells me everything I need to know about their priorities. Here are the possibilities:

• They don't understand what they've built. The technical team chose AT Protocol for good reasons, but the people presenting at Davos didn't understand the implications or didn't think the audience would care. They also don't know their own institution already participates in decentralised social media via Mastodon.

• They're deliberately obscuring the decentralisation. Perhaps they think "AT Protocol" or "ActivityPub" sound too technical or too niche. Perhaps they wanted to present W as distinctly European rather than as part of global decentralised networks. Perhaps mentioning protocols would undermine the narrative that they're building something new.

• They want to take credit for something that already exists. By not mentioning AT Protocol or their existing ActivityPub participation, they can position W as a novel solution to European digital independence rather than acknowledging they're joining ecosystems that already exist and already work.

• They think the Davos audience doesn't care about technical details. So they focused on political framing and sovereignty rhetoric instead, assuming that billionaires and policymakers would rather hear about "European independence" than "open protocols."

Whatever the reason, it bothers me deeply. It suggests that the people announcing this platform don't actually value the thing that makes it work. They value the branding, the political positioning, the ability to say "we built a European social network."

They apparently don't value – or don't want to admit – that the decentralisation and sovereignty they're promising comes from protocols that are already available, already working, already being used by developers and users around the world. Including, ironically, by their own institution.

We Don't Need W To Achieve What W Promises

This is where my correction makes my original point significantly stronger.

If W is built on AT Protocol, then everything W promises to deliver, we already have.

I don't need W to host my data in Europe. I'm already doing that. I've hosted my data on UK-based and German-based Personal Data Servers. Right now, my data lives at @tophhie.social, a UK-based PDS run by @tophhie.cloud, provided free of charge.

I don't need W to achieve digital independence from American platforms. I already have that. My identity is mine, my data is hosted where I choose, and I can migrate between providers in different jurisdictions without losing followers or content.

I don't need W to participate in a decentralised social network. I'm already in one. I've been building on it, developing tools for it, integrating my website with it.

So what exactly is W bringing to the table?

If the answer is "a PDS with European government backing" or "a relay operated by European institutions" or "an AppView with European moderation policies," then fine. Those are all legitimate contributions to the AT Protocol ecosystem.

But those aren't new capabilities. Those are just new implementations of existing infrastructure.

The AT Protocol is designed to support multiple PDSs, multiple relays, multiple AppViews. That's the whole point. You're supposed to be able to choose your infrastructure provider, your moderation policies, your interface. The protocol enables that diversity.

W is not offering something new. W is offering a specific instance of something that already exists.

And that would be perfectly fine – we should have more instances, more providers, more geographic diversity in AT Protocol infrastructure. But presenting it at Davos as if it's a novel solution to European digital independence feels disingenuous.

You're not solving a problem. You're participating in a solution that already exists. Just say that.

I'm Still Not Moving (Because I Don't Need To)

This is the fundamental point that hasn't changed: I'm not leaving the Atmosphere I've already built my digital life in.

I spent nearly two years trying to find my place in ActivityPub. I bounced between Mastodon instances, tried different platforms, dealt with instance drama and federation issues and all the friction that comes with that ecosystem. It was exhausting.

When I found the AT Protocol, it felt like coming home. The technical elegance, the genuine portability, the separation of identity from hosting, the cryptographic verification – it all just worked in a way that ActivityPub never quite did for me.

I've built things here. I've made connections. I've integrated my website with the protocol. I've developed tools that bridge different services. I've developed Malachite, which connects the Atmosphere to music services like Last.fm and Spotify via @teal.fm. I've found a community that feels like mine.

If W is just another node in the AT Protocol ecosystem – another PDS, another relay, another AppView – then great. That's how it should work. The protocol is designed for that. More infrastructure diversity is good.

But I don't need to pack up my digital life and move to W to support European digital independence, because I'm already in a genuinely decentralised system. That's the beauty of AT Protocol – you don't have to choose.

You can host your data in Europe while using an American AppView. You can use a European relay while following people whose data lives in Japan. You can migrate your identity between jurisdictions without losing anything.

The entire point of AT Protocol is that you don't have to choose between platforms. You can use any client, connect to any relay, host your data anywhere. W doesn't change that. W is just another option within that system.

So no, I'm not moving. I don't need to. The protocol I'm already using delivers exactly what W claims to offer.

That's not a criticism of W. That's a criticism of how W was presented – as if it's something new, something different, something European, rather than just another node in an already-global decentralised network.

The Real Lesson Here

I've updated the original Leaflet post with a disclaimer at the top. It now clearly states that W may be AT Protocol-based, that I didn't know this at the time because it wasn't in the official announcement, and that this information emerged from leaked screenshots and community discussion during the stream where my post was being read.

I thought about deleting the post entirely. It would certainly save me from the ongoing awkwardness of having been overtaken by breaking news within a day of publication. But I decided to leave it up, with the correction, because I think there's value in showing the process.

I didn't make a research mistake. I made a timing mistake. I published based on the information available – the World Economic Forum presentation, the press releases, the official announcements. None of that mentioned AT Protocol. None of it talked about decentralisation in technical terms.

And that's the real problem here.

If I got this wrong, it's because the people announcing W at Davos got it wrong first. They had the opportunity to present a genuinely decentralised platform to a global audience and instead chose to focus on European branding and political sovereignty.

They buried the lede. Or rather, they didn't include the lede at all.

The lesson I'm taking from this is not "verify your technical claims before publishing" – I did that to the extent that information was available. The lesson is: don't trust press releases and political presentations to tell you how technology actually works.

I should have waited for technical documentation. I should have assumed that a Davos presentation would prioritise politics over accuracy. I should have been more skeptical of any announcement that frames technical infrastructure in purely nationalist terms.

But I also think there's a lesson here for the people behind W: if you're building on AT Protocol, say so. Don't bury that fact. Don't obscure it with political framing. Don't present your platform as if it's something novel when it's actually participating in existing infrastructure.

The AT Protocol is genuinely impressive. It genuinely enables the kind of digital sovereignty you're claiming to want. It genuinely solves the problems you're claiming to solve.

Why wouldn't you want people to know that?

If you're worried that mentioning AT Protocol makes your project seem less European, less independent, less novel – well, that says more about your priorities than about the technology.

The protocol is the achievement. The protocol is what makes European digital independence possible. If you're using it, be proud of that. Don't hide it.

Why I'm Still Frustrated

Look, I get it. I published a post with a technical claim that turned out to be wrong due to timing. That's on me. I could have waited for more information. I could have been more cautious.

But I'm still frustrated.

I'm frustrated that the official announcement at the World Economic Forum didn't mention the most important fact about what they're building – that it's built on AT Protocol.

I'm frustrated that they also didn't mention their own institution already runs decentralised social media on ActivityPub via their Mastodon instance at ec.social-network.europa.eu.

I'm frustrated that I had to learn about W being AT Protocol-based from leaked screenshots and community discussion rather than from the people actually announcing it.

I'm frustrated that "European digital independence" was presented as a political project rather than a technical one, when the technology is what actually delivers independence.

I'm frustrated that we're still doing this dance where governments and institutions pretend they're building something new when they're actually just participating in something that already exists – and they already know this because they're already doing it with ActivityPub.

And I'm frustrated that the conversation around W has been more about geopolitics and branding than about the actual infrastructure that makes it work.

If W is built on AT Protocol, that's great. Genuinely. More geographic diversity in AT Protocol infrastructure is good for everyone. More institutions participating in decentralised systems is exactly what we need. And the EU already has experience with this through their Mastodon instance – they know how to do this.

But let's be honest about what that means.

It means W is not a new platform. It's a new node in an existing network.

It means European digital independence was already possible before W was announced – the EU's own Mastodon instance proved that years ago.

It means the technology that enables what W promises has been available for years, on multiple protocols.

It means the real story here is not "Europe launches new social network" but "European institution expands their decentralised social media presence from ActivityPub to also include AT Protocol."

That's still a good story! It's actually a better story, because it demonstrates that decentralised infrastructure is viable, that institutions can participate in multiple open protocols, that you don't need to build proprietary systems to achieve digital sovereignty.

But apparently that's not the story they wanted to tell at Davos.

A Day Later

So here we are, roughly a day after the original post, and I'm issuing this correction.

W is apparently AT Protocol-based. I was early, not wrong, but the end result is the same – my central technical claim was inaccurate at the time I made it, even if the information wasn't available in the official channels.

The irony is not lost on me that I found this out watching a stream on stream.place – a platform that perfectly demonstrates what decentralised infrastructure can do – where Eli, the lead developer of that platform, gently noted the new information after reading my post.

If there's a better symbol of the ATmosphere community than finding out you're wrong while watching a decentralised streaming platform run by someone who respects you enough to be kind about it, I don't know what it is.

My other concerns still stand. The name is still terrible. The Davos presentation was still misleading. We still don't need W to achieve what W promises, because the protocol delivers that already.

But I was wrong about W not being AT Protocol-based, and that matters enough to write this entire follow-up.

Consider this my public correction, issued on the platform I've built my digital life on, using the protocol that already does everything W claims it will do.

Thanks to everyone who pointed out the new information. Special acknowledgment to @iame.li for being gentle with the correction during his stream.place broadcast. And to anyone reading this who watched the original post become outdated in real-time – yeah, that's the internet for you.

At least now when people search for information about W Social (good luck searching for "W", by the way), they'll find both my original concerns and this correction. That's more than the Davos presentation gave us – they didn't even mention their own Mastodon instance, let alone AT Protocol.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go make anothetea and think about how much easier this would have been if they'd just been honest about the protocols from the start. Both of them.