@aral @nicolasvivant
they're keen not to mention any fediverse competitor, the only real alternative.

@aral @nicolasvivant But they don't want a federated alternative owned by nobody, they want a government panopticon that they own and control themselves, not some decentralized un-owned un-controlable alternative.

I will not be registering, certainly.

@toon @aral @6d03

I support mine, since I administrate/moderate/pay for it

@ramshackle @aral in Spain's Spanish it's "u-ve do-ble", 4 syllables

@bargo @aral @nicolasvivant The closed platforms all got their key ideas from Usenet, which was federated and predates them all. Threaded conversations like this, for example, are an idea copied from Usenet.

@GutterPoetry @nicolasvivant Not our only two options (thank fuck).

@aral @nicolasvivant

They definitely were talking notes from #Bluesky Jay Graber's disingenuous 'decentralized' charm offensive.

@aral @nicolasvivant Do not use wsocial.

@aral@mastodon.ar.al @nicolasvivant@colter.social it's surreal how these folks would throw any new corporate crap at us while ignoring the literal elephant in the room - that ActivityPub has already proved its point and they just need to run their instances.

--EDIT--

Oh, a closer look points to something interesting:

Anonymous accounts and automated bots are not allowed, according to the project’s backers

So how do you prevent anonymous accounts and bots?

Simple, with online identity verification!

That's why they ignore ActivityPub

They're trying to sell us the solution for an existential problem that they have created themselves around an emergency that doesn't exist.

At this point any Trojan horse that can get EU citizens to swallow online identity verification can work. And if they can edulcolorate with a "but it's a European sovereign social network!" (even if the ID verification mechanisms still rely on Google's and Apple's operating systems) then why not give it a try?

(Also, I guess that "no bots" implies "no public APIs" too. The war of walled gardens).

@aral @nicolasvivant here is a picture of W Social's CEO on LinkedIn. "Make Europe Great Again"

@fedi @nicolasvivant *smdh*

@mastodonmigration @aral @nicolasvivant 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

@fedi @aral @nicolasvivant

They're fascists then? Surely that's what the hat means?

@fedi @aral @nicolasvivant ok. W definitely stands for wankers then

@FediThing @fedi @aral @nicolasvivant I don't understand - why are we hating a European tech startup here? Have I missed something? Surely we want more EU startups?

@fedi @aral @nicolasvivant ️

@davidt @FediThing @fedi @nicolasvivant Yeah, I think you missed the exit to Bluesky and ended up at Mastodon.

@fedi @aral @nicolasvivant truly pitiful

@davidt @fedi @aral @nicolasvivant

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 https://fedi.tips/why-is-the-fediverse-on-so-many-separate-servers/ ).

@FediThing @fedi @aral @nicolasvivant 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!