Hi Spencer, thanks for this, quick reactions in your emai textl. The text still is not final in the sense that the trilogues may change it, so don't take it as a definite answer. On 08.04.19 18:01, Spencer Graves wrote: It doesn't. See this thread for more background on the objectives of the regulation https://twitter.com/a2na/status/1115231329849884672 I don't know the Patriot Act in detail so it would need a more thorough comparison, but potentially such thing could happen on the grounds of the anti-terrorist /directive/ that is separate act on combating terrorism (so not only content, as this one is) - depending on whether this would be considered contributing to terrorist offences or not. Probably not, I think this would be a big stretch of the law even in its worst form, as we saw by EC. But looking at the imaginative policies of Orban for example I tend not to underestimate dictator's drive to have things their way, so depending on what they consider as dissent, public threat, etc. The trouble is, that once removal orders are issues, the platforms must remove content and they do not have the option to contest them on the grounds of being absurd. I agree, I wish they tackled global warming with such fierce attitude. The legislation does not apply many direct measures to platforms, other than duty of care (which of course is something already). If platforms know about criminal terrorist content they need to inform authorities (LIBE version), they also need to adjust their ToC and may use automation for flagging but may not actively seek terrorist content. Any measures forced on them cannot amount to general monitoring. But if a formally correct removal order comes to remove this article, then we'll have to comply. I wouldn't be too worried about us in terms of normal activity and relationships with EU states. If a malicious government would like to use this against us, things may get worse, however. -- Anna Mazgal EU Policy Advisor Wikimedia anna(a)wikimedia.be @a2na mobile: +32 487 222 945 51 Rue du Trône BE-1050 Brussels

Hi Tisza, just one thing - the definition of a competent authority that will issue removal orders as adopted in LIBE (so still may change in the trilogues) is defined as /single designated judicial authority or functionally independent administrative authority in the Member State/. So it may but doesn't have to be a court and as we know in countries like Hungary and Poland (where I am from) the independence of administration is not a given n the current political situation. Originally that wasn't even defined as such since it was seen as an internal affair of a Member State ("/competent authorities have the necessary capability and sufficient resources to achieve the aims and fulfill their obligations/") so let's see if that desired amendment stays in. My point is that if these are not judicial bodies it will be even easier to make them issue ridiculous removal orders as a tactics to put a service in trouble. We will definitely monitor this and reach out to you when we have a better clarity which way the trilogue goes. But that will most probably be happening in the fall. Best, Anna On 08.04.19 19:10, Tisza Gergő wrote: -- Anna Mazgal EU Policy Advisor Wikimedia anna(a)wikimedia.be @a2na mobile: +32 487 222 945 51 Rue du Trône BE-1050 Brussels