I want to highlight this initiative of public broadcasters internationally
Public broadcasters come together and claim:
Our countries may differ by culture and language, but we all share the
common duty to Inform, Educate and Entertain. Our engagement with audiences
of all ages across a range of broadcast and online services is critical to
our success in serving them whenever, wherever and however they want.
(however they want? did someone just say "remix" and "creative commons"?)
The Global Task Force is particularly proud of the speed with which public
media across the world have responded to the challenge of supporting the
education of children who are learning at home by bringing together
brilliant partners from across the public and private spheres. Public
service media is uniquely placed to play this role.
True. There is (among other things) high-quality educational content being
provided by public broadcasters. I'd love it to be
- freely licensed, whereever possible
- paid fairly
- accessible everywhere (no geoblocking!)
- accessible anytime (no expiry date for informational and educational
We currently have a campaign going on targeted to german public
broadcasters, you can find it at wikimedia.de/oeffentliches-gut. Its slogan
is #ÖGÖG, meaning: Public Money – Public Good.
I would like to reach out to you guys, especially in* Australia, France,
United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden and Canada.* An open letter advocating
free licences in strengthening remix and re-use of the content of public
broadcasters could help us a lot. What do you think?
All the best from Berlin
project manager public policy
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Mobil 0151 25 31 17 09
Büro (030) 219 158 26-0
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
Hier finden Sie unseren neuen Newsletter
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
We have an updated work programme by the Commission: Digital Services Act
will be proposed by the end of the year, but the Artificial Intelligence
dossier is being pushed back and is now expected first half of 2021.
Meanwhile the European Parliament is gathering input from MEPs on both
these topics in an array of non-binding reports.
This and previous reports on Meta-Wiki:
Digital Services Act (DSA)
Back on track: Contrary to what your Wikimedia Brussels team was sure and
certain of, the Digital Serves Act timeline won’t be postponed, according
to the adjusted Commission Work Programme presented this week.  Despite
the fact that we are still waiting for the consultation to be published,
which was originally supposed to happen early May and is expected next week
now, Commissioner Breton and associates still want to have a legislative
proposal out in time by the end of this year.
Meanwhile in the Parliament: The last of a number of own initiative draft
reports on the DSA was published by Kris Peeters (EPP BE) in the Civil
Liberties committee (LIBE).  Petters supports “limited liability for
content and the country of origin principle”, key components of the current
regime under the e-Commerce Directive. However he suggests that harmful
content, as opposed to only illegal content, should be addressed.
Meanwhile in Parliament II: Last month’s Monitoring Report already talked
about the other two parliamentary draft reports, by Alex Saliba (S&D MT) in
the Internal Market committee (IMCO) and by Tiemo Wölken (S&D DE) in the
Legal Affairs committee (JURI).  The MEPs and their staff are now
parsing through hundreds of amendments on these (non-binding) reports.
 Votes are expected in September. Some key questions include:
*Should harmful content be included in the scope?
*Should there be extra rules for some, more dominant platforms?
*Should these extra rules be for platforms that are “dominant”, “systemic”,
“which significant network effects”, “holding a significant gatekeeper
*Should platforms that moderate content enjoy liability protections? (They
now risk losing it.)
On the other hand, it seems that almost everyone sees the need for some
sort of notice and action procedures for content removal to be enshrined.
Artificial Intelligence: The consultation on Artificial Intelligence is due
in a couple of weeks. Several of you already contributed (mille grazie!).
 We are having a call Monday, 1 June, at 15:00 CEST to polish our
answers to the Commission survey. Ping me if you like to join!
Data Strategy: The Commission is asking about things like “data altruism”,
“data for the public good” and data “donations”. All these terms are
crucial to the interpretation of the questions and their answers and, of
course, there are no where defined. We called the Commission out on this,
submitted a position on “quality requirements for High-Value Datasets”
(which was asked about as such sets should become open as per Open Data
Directive). We also gave examples of data being already gathered and used
for the public good and a few ideas what potential “data trustees” could
look like. We, of course, didn’t forget to repeat our “Carthago delenda
est” a.k.a. “No new IP rights!” Our final submissions are now linked on the
Meta-Wiki page of the consultation. 
Competition Consultation: 
One of the European Commission’s main objectives for the current
legislative is regulating platforms. The Digital Services Act is an
important but not the only one part of this endeavor, as the EC’s
Vice-President Margrethe Vestager seems to be set to solving some of the
problems through competition mechanisms. It is in fact good news, as
pushing everything that relates to dominant platforms into a Digital Single
Market regulation may be limiting to solve issues that have little to do
with the common market area and a lot to do with how powerful some actors
The EC plans to evaluate a 1997 Notice on market definition, a set of
binding guidelines used to define what's the "market" a business operates
in. This is a crucial step in determining things such as whether a business
has a large or small market share, whether a business is dominant, or
whether a merger would reduce competition and cause harm.
The process has started with gathering of feedback on the scope and
rationale of the evaluation. Both the Wikimedia Foundation and Free
Knowledge Advocacy Group submitted responses underlining the need to
evaluate the notice as to its adequacy for the digital sphere and markets.
The analysis of a relevant market should be centered around user behaviour
and how the results of examining that behaviour can be integrated in the
market definition. You can check both responses on a dedicated meta
page or on the EC’s website.
We will be following this process as the next step is consultation on the
Notice planned to start in the second quarter of 2020. If you would
like to be involved in drafting the consultation response, let us know!
I wanted to make sure you were all aware of two particular issues happening
in US policy: (1) the White House Executive Order on "Online Censorship,"
and (2) the Copyright Office's report on the notice-and-takedown provisions
of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
*Executive Order on Online Censorship*
Today, the White House issued a Executive Order that is being characterized
as a "crackdown on social media." The focus of the Order is a part of US
law commonly called the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), or "Section
That law, essentially,* says that online platforms that host other people's
speech aren't held liable for that speech if it violates a civil law. It
also says that online platforms shouldn't be held liable for content
moderation. It's an important legal protection for Wikimedia projects,
since it means that the projects aren't held liable for user vandalism that
might be defamation, violations of privacy, etc.
While some press reports have characterize the executive order as removing
or altering Section 230, this overstates the case. Among other things, the
1. offers a legal interpretation that says that a platform that blocks
certain viewpoints loses its Section 230 protections (this is contrary to
the text of the statute and court decisions interpreting it);
2. Asks independent federal agencies to pass rules that could exclude
content-moderating platforms from protection, or to investigate whether
viewpoint moderation by private platforms could be a violation of consumer
3. Sets up a working group to collect examples of purportedly biased
content moderation (including groups collecting lists of trolls and bad
actors) for review;
4. Tells the Attorney General to propose legislation that would serve the
purposes of the order.
While Wikimedia projects would fall within the scope of these discussions,
the order actually does very little to change existing law. Its legal
interpretations are not binding and do not change the statute or any prior
court interpretations. Also, the order's directions to executive agencies
ask them for things that they are likely unable to legally do. We will look
for the proposal from the AG's office and address that should it be
introduced in Congress.
However, the lack of legal effect from the executive order does not mean
that it has no effect on online platforms. This order comes in the context
of the White House accusing online fact-checkers and content moderators of
being biased against Trump and conservative voices, and the order is
designed to exert political and media pressure more immediately than legal
pressure. Part of this includes amplifying and directing criticism towards
online platforms and their content moderators.
We will be tracking any regulatory next steps stemming from this order, and
maintaining a legal defense for free expression on our projects.
*this is a simplification; the full text of the statute is available here
*Copyright Office DMCA report*
The US Copyright Office recently released a report on the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which governs how the Foundation deals
with reports of copyright infringement on the Wikimedia projects.
The report makes several recommendations for changes in the law's
interpretation and application. Despite our comments and participation in
this process, and those of many other public interest and industry
stakeholders, many of the recommendations would make the notice and
takedown process more difficult for the Foundation. Other recommendations
would create more uncertainty for uploaders and editors, and increase the
risks that online services [ISPs only or also over-the-top services?] would
be required to disconnect users upon repeated allegations of copyright
The report does not in itself make changes to the law, but it will be used
as part of a renewed push for the recommended changes. We will be looking
closely at it and working to bring our movement and other stakeholders
together to make sure that US copyright law does not create more
impediments to free knowledge.
Sherwin Siy (he/him)
Senior Public Policy Manager
Salut la liste ,
1. Thanks to User:Abián from WMES we now have draft answers to the Data
Strategy Consultation of the European Commission. 
2. We also have a pretty final draft of a position paper on quality
requirements for high-value datasets. 
3. We are now gathering insights, opinions and ideas around the suggestion
that so-called "data trustees" (DE: Datentreuhänder) could be established
to enable citizens to make available their data for the public interest.
If you want to contribute to any of these now would be a good time, as we
need to submit our position by the end of the month.
as you might have noticed, our Brussels colleagues are working on - a lot
of stuff - but also on the proposal for a regulation on preventing the
dissemination of terrorist content online
- *terreg* in the EU bubble slang.
Wikimedia Deutschland, together with Reporter Ohne Grenzen, the German
Association of Journalists, the German Union of Journalists, and
Whistleblower Network, sent an open letter to the German government
The letter calls on Interior Minister Horst Seehofer and Justice Minister
Christine Lambrecht to take a stronger stand for basic communication rights
at European level in the context of negotiations on the EU Regulation on
preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online.
*As the issue is not debated nearly, the time gained should be used for a
public debate over this legislation.* *We **translated the german open
letter into english*
as it may serve as a template* or orientation for your national open
letters or other approaches on forming alliances and warning governments of
the negative consequences of the terrorist content regulation regarding
freedom of information. Please feel free to adapt it for your conditions.
You might also see edri's open letter
to the members of the Council of the EU for the key concerns.
project manager public policy
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,