Why Europe needs its own social layer

May 15, 2025: the EU's Committee of the Regions published a formal statement calling for public investment in social media alternatives to Big Tech . Not a think-tank opinion, not a start up pitch. This is a European institution, and it did not come from nowhere.

A growing demand due to US shortfalls

It has been clear for a while that Europeans want European social platforms . There was no political interest and the necessary tech ecosystem to make it happen. That's changing now. The European Commission's Tech Sovereignty Package is soon to formalize the EU's push for independent cloud infrastructure, open-source, and identity frameworks. In that picture, Social media is not just a consumer pick, it is also a large strategic question.

The shortfalls of the Xs and Metas of the world is not simply that they are American. The challenge is structural: US law governance, US shareholders, US political pressure. This includes the potential of US intervention on who can speak, can be heard and what content is valid. If we believe there’s even a one percent chance of a "US government-led Cambridge Analytica" situation, we have to take it as an absolute certainty.

The EU's Digital Services Act attempted to rule these platforms from the outside. However, regulation applied to foreign infrastructure just reacts to the harm. Europe does not sit at the table where it is decided what these companies need to comply to from scratch. That's only possible if the approach to tech is European by design.

What does "European sovereign" in social media actually means

European sovereign in tech is used a lot, not always with the best intentions. Sometimes, because of genuine ignorance. Others, with suspicious intend. We will be focusing in social media for this article, but many of these concepts can be extended to other tech fields.

Data control: Your post, your social graph, your DMS. Where to they live? Are they under EU legal jurisdiction?

Content moderation: Who decides what gets removed, amplified, suppressed? Does that process answer to EU law?

Identity portability: if the platform disappears, or terms change, can you take your identity and followers with you? Does anything stay behind?

Infrastructure independence: Are the servers, the software, the companies running them, and the investors funding these companies subject to EU law?

The AT Protocol has been adopted by a growing ecosystem of independent builders. The reason is very clear, it allows anybody to control data, moderation, portability and infrastructure. However, using the protocol tells you how the data moves, but it does not tell you where the data lives or who owns the place where the data lives.

Saying "European sovereign" is not enough

Using the words "European sovereign social media" has become quite common. On the ATP ecosystem, two names are often repeated: Eurosky and W Social. The challenges appear behind the branding.

Eurosky is infrastructure, not a product, not sovereign. It provides the PDS layer for other apps. It is a valuable contribution. However, it is challenged by technical decisions like having part of the infrastructure under US-based services, including Cloudflare and Squarespace. That is not a minor detail: both are US companies, subject to US law, including the CLOUD Act, which allows US authorities to compel data disclosure from US companies regardless of where that data is physically stored.

W Social is a consumer product app, and it has generated significant media attention. Being headquartered in Sweden is a meaningful start. However, Swedish HQ does not automatically guarantee EU data residency, European-owned servers, or full transparency about the infrastructure stack. Further disclosure on the infrastructure and investor ownership is necessary. If any of these are American, these will be subject of US laws including the CLOUD Act.

The protocol is the floor. Ownership is the ceiling.

The AT Protocol makes us all equals, ensuring that, in principle, all platforms can interoperate and users can move their identity as they please. It is extremely important, and also a reason why the ATP has the attention of European institutions.

Sovereignty, however, is ultimately determined by who owns the infrastructure using the protocol. A European handle on a US-owned server is still subject to US law. A European branded app running on US cloud can still receive US governmental orders. Real autonomy means European cloud, European jurisdiction, European ownership - all of them, always, at the same time.

This is not an abstract position. It is a product choice that Europeans can make today. The political moment is here. There are technical foundations, mature enough to build serious social platforms. What has been missing is a platform that takes full stack promise of European digital sovereignty seriously, not as a marketing claim, but as a commitment in the engineering and legal sides.

That is exactly what LeafPlaza is built to be.