W. What's it Worth?

DISCLAIMER

W may be based on the AT Protocol. I did not know this at the time. This is according to some rumours floating around via leaked screenshots. Still, I feel this rant still stands as a general manifesto on my stance about social media.

W Social. Announced at Davos, of all places. Because nothing says "grassroots European social networking" quite like a ski resort in Switzerland filled with billionaires and policymakers deciding the future of the internet over canapés.

I’ve been sitting with this news for a bit, turning it over in my head, and I have to be honest: even with W on the horizon, promising a new era of European digital independence, I am still going to stick with the AT Protocol and, by extension, @bsky.app , @blackskyweb.xyz , @transrights.northsky.social and others, along with this wonderful community I’ve found here. I spent nearly two years finding my home in the Atmosphere after failed, exhausting attempts to settle into ActivityPub. I finally have a space that feels like mine, and I am not keen on packing up my digital life yet again for a platform that feels like it’s trying to solve a problem we’ve already fixed—just to satisfy a geopolitical ego trip.

I do not want that again.

The Name Game (and Other Bad Omens)

First, let’s address the absolute elephant in the room: W is a stupid name.

It suffers from the exact same terminal stupidity as "X". It’s forgettable, blatantly confusing, and impossible to search for. By the gods, they are just reinventing the wheel, but making it square because they think it looks more modern. It feels like tech bros looked at the alphabet, saw that Elon took X, and decided to just move one letter back in a fit of uninspired creative bankruptcy.

If the branding is this lazy, what does that say about the architecture?

A History of My Own Infrastructure

What frustrates me most about the Davos "independence" pitch is that we already have the tools to achieve it. I’m not just a casual observer here; I’ve spent my time in the trenches of decentralisation.

I actually created this DID on the original Bluesky infrastructure. But because the AT Protocol is built for genuine portability, I didn't stay there. I’ve lived the decentralised dream: I hosted my own UK-based Personal Data Server (PDS) for a while to have full control over my data. When I wanted to shift that responsibility, I moved to the German-hosted altq.net . Huge thanks to @fry69.dev there.

I am now happily settled on the UK-based @tophhie.social , provided free of charge by @tophhie.cloud .

This is what W doesn't seem to understand: I am already decentralised within the Atmosphere. My identity is mine, my data is hosted where I choose, and I can migrate between servers in different countries without losing a single follower or post. We don't need a new platform to achieve "European independence"—we just need to use the protocol that already allows it.

The Developer's Perspective

I know the AT Protocol quite well – not just as a user, but as a developer. I’ve spent hours buried in lexicons and XRPC calls. I developed Malachite , a tool that bridges the gap between the Atmosphere and music services like Last.fm and Spotify by feeding into @teal.fm .

Beyond that, I have fully integrated my own website with the Authenticated Transfer Protocol. My site isn't just a static page; it relies on the protocol to fetch and display my digital life, using custom lexicons like sh.tangled.repo to connect my social identity with my development work. I’ve seen firsthand how powerful this composability is – how I can add new data types without asking anyone's permission. Why would I trade that creative freedom for a closed, Davos-approved "W"?

The Verification Trap

Beyond the technical redundancy of W, there's a more philosophical – and frankly, visceral – objection I have: I personally hate the idea of verifying who you are just to use social media.

The announcement mentions "trusted identities" and "verification," which in Davos-speak usually means linking your digital presence to a government ID or some other centralised authority. It’s anathema to the spirit of the open web. I’ve spent my life navigating digital spaces as a queer person, often relying on the safety of pseudonymous identity to explore and connect. Forcing users to prove their "real-world" identity doesn't make a platform safer; it just makes it more restrictive and dangerous for those of us who don't fit into neat, state-approved boxes.

If W is built on the premise that you must be "verified" to be heard, then it isn't a platform for the people – it's just a platform for the establishment.

The Sisyphean Silo

The entire concept of social media "independence" via a new, closed platform is Sisyphean. We keep rolling this boulder up the hill – creating new "sovereign" platforms – only to watch it roll back down when they inevitably become just another walled garden.

Leveraging what is already established – specifically the work @bnewbold.net and others have outlined with the AT Protocol – would be the sensible route. Imagine a conjoined European network of PDSes, fully compatible with the global ecosystem. That would be brilliant. It would be the best of both worlds: European digital sovereignty without the cultural isolation. But W feels like it’s choosing the isolation.

A European Intranet?

I say this as someone who, despite being British, feels a deep collective identity with continental Europe. I am very pro-EU. We European people do want our own infrastructure. We want digital autonomy. But we do not want a new platformed silo.

The entire internet is meant to be global. By trying to silo it again with "W Social," they are essentially trying to build a European intranet. It is a microcosm of rhyming history—repeating the mistakes of the early web where everything was fragmented and nothing talked to anything else. It is regressive.

I can't speak for all of us, but this is what a lot of us want.

The Better Path

The solution isn't to build a fortress; it's to build bridges.

We should be sticking with the AT Protocol and collaborating with projects like @eurosky.social . We should be hosting our own infrastructure that can interoperate with the American infrastructure of Bluesky and Blacksky and the Canadian infrastructure of Northsky. That is true independence: owning your data while still being able to talk to the rest of the world.

We have protocols that can already interoperate with global infrastructure. Why are we ignoring them to build something that starts with a W and ends with an "all"?

Final Thoughts

I’m tired of platforms. I want protocols.

I want systems that talk to each other, not systems that demand exclusive loyalty and a passport scan. Until W proves it understands that difference – until it proves it's more than just a Davos vanity project – I’ll be staying right here in the Atmosphere. I'll keep watering my yew tree, tweaking my PDS, and waiting for the rest of the world to realise that we don't need new gardens; we just need to tear down the fences.