Dear Friends,
we are super excited to see you tomorrow for
Small Lean BXL Meeting: “Brave New EU”
Thursday, July 1st, 17:00-20:00 CET
in this BigBlueButton
<https://app.bbbserver.de/de/join/df51a54b-f188-418c-a54d-02462c568e48>
We are grateful to the following people:
- Allison Davenport will pick our brains on a very important issue: how to
best get feedback on and consult policy positions in our community?
- Justus G. de Bruijn will present WMNL's experience with force field
analysis: how to cherish your friends and keep an eye on adversaries?
- Liam Wyatt alias Wittylama will discuss the Enterprise project: what are
its potential implications for public policy work?
- Lilli Iliev will engage us around knowledge equity: this issue is one of
the fundamentals of the 2030 Strategy, how do we incorporate it in things
we do?
The general idea for any contribution is that there is 5-7 minutes to
present - then we decide if:
- this is something to discuss in more depth in the meeting (beyond
questions of clarification that are always welcome and possible, that is) -
then we just dive right in
- this is something to discuss right away between a few interested
participants - then we create a breakout room for that purpose
- this is something to discuss at a later date - the person presenting will
collect interest and get back to those interested separately
Along with these updates Dimi and I will bring you up to speed on the most
important developments in the Brussels Bubble across our work plan.
Also, since we last saw each other we have gained new colleagues taking on
public policy and advocacy roles in chapters - welcome, and we hope that
you will make yourselves known!
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Hope to see you tomorrow in big numbers!
Anna & Dimi
--
Anna Mazgal
Senior EU Policy Advisor
Wikimedia
anna(a)wikimedia.be
@a2na
mobile: +32 487 222 945
12 Rue Belliard
BE-1040 Brussels
--
Wikimedia Belgium vzw
BE 0563.775.480
- RPR Brussel
Antwerpselaan 40
Boulevard d’Anvers 1000 Brussel/Bruxelles
www.wikimedia.be
<https://www.wikimedia.be/>
info(a)wikimedia.be <mailto:info@wikimedia.be>
It is what we have decided to call “DSA month” here in Brussels and your
monitoring report will do a deep dive of it. A total of 8 (in words: eight)
committees are working on it and there are literally thousands of
amendments to plow through. On the Council side the Portuguese Presidency
tried to solve one issue of ours before it hands it over to Slovenia. Enjoy
the read!
Anna & Dimi
This and previous reports on Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
======
Digital Services Act
---
Council: As the Portuguese Presidency steps down and Slovenia takes over
[1], there is still no “general approach”, meaning Member States still
haven’t agreed on a common negotiating position vis-à-vis the European
Parliament. France is pushing for stricter liability (see French Republican
Values Bill below) and would love to see hard deadlines for platforms’
reactions to notices. In the other corner Sweden, Ireland and Finland have
released a joint paper [2] calling for a higher threshold for content
removal. They argue that takedown rules should apply only to “clearly
illegal” content as opposed to “apparently illegal” content and make a
freedom of expression argument.
---
Council Compromises: One thing the Portuguese Presidency did rather well
was to propose new wording of the “actual knowledge” in Article 14.3.
Online platforms are obligated to act upon obtaining “actual knowledge” of
illegal content. However, the Commission proposal could have meant that
almost any notice we receive is considered to be “actual knowledge”. Most
notices we receive are not about illegal content. The proposed compromise
adds that it applies only if “services can identify the illegality of the
content in question”, [3] which is much better.
---
Parliament - IMCO: In the lead Internal Market and Consumer Affairs
committee (IMCO) the rapporteur Christel Schaldemose (S&D DK) presented her
draft report. [4] While she focuses mainly on consumer protection and
physical goods and services, she presented a few worrying ideas. Ms.
Schaldemose proposes that accounts of politicians should be harder to
block. She also proposes a 24 hour deadline for platforms to remove illegal
content that “can seriously harm public policy (?!?), public security or
public health” and a seven days deadline for all other cases. Other MEPs
have until the end of today to submit their amendments. We are working with
several groups on amendments to clearly distinguish between service
provider rules and rules created up and enforced by editing communities. We
are also raising attention to the “actual knowledge” issue, as we did with
Council.
---
Parliament - other committees: A total of seven other committees are
working on issuing opinions on the DSA, some of which the lead committee
will have to take into account. There is a flurry of literally thousands of
amendments in all directions. Across the board French lawmakers are pushing
for stricter liability and hard content removal deadlines, in sync with
their national government. Perhaps one interesting suggestion was made in
the Industry, Trade and Research committee (ITRE). A group of EPP lawmakers
there tabled amendment 225 [5], which would exclude not-for-profit
providers of scientific and educational repositories from the act. This
would probably be the safest way to keep Wikipedia and Commons as they are.
We are going to do a deeper, legal analysis of what it means, but we
welcome the thoughtful proposal by these MEPs.
======
French Republican Values Bill
---
France, in an attempt to create facts and push its views onto the DSA is
debating a “Republican Values” Bill, which is incorrectly summarized as a
"social networks" law, as it has a much larger scope of application and
Wikipedia is targeted. It basically creates obligations to quickly delete
content that is considered illegal (But by whom?!?).
---
WMFR: Needless to say that Wikimédia France is not amused and tabled some
amendments in the Assemblée nationale as it seems inappropriate to regulate
social networks and not-for-profit educational sites in the same way. They
also published a somewhat angry blog post. [6]
---
European Commission: Another party that is not amused is the European
Commission itself. They just love it when Member States start creating
national laws while they are trying to establish EU-wide rules to avoid
fragmentation. Member States have the obligation to notify the Commission
when they are working on national implementation of EU law, something
France did for a second time last week. [7] Stakeholders have the
opportunity to submit comments on these notifications to the European
Commission. Something that Wikimédia France did for a second time this
week. [8]
======
Digital Markets Act
---
The DSA’s weird sibling, DMA, has been taken on at the IMCO Committee.
Rapporteur MEP Andreas Schwab (EPP, DE) proposes that the special rules for
gatekeepers are limited to really wealthy and popular platforms, targeting
them effectively at GAFAM. The leak surfacing a few days before the
report’s publication showed a bold attempt to create a procedure for
tailor-made remedies in case gatekeepers don’t behave well that included
measures ranging from mandating interoperability with other services to
breaking up culprit services. Disappointingly, the Rapporteur got shy and
the idea bordering on introducing a new competition tool, was removed from
the official version of the report. We shared our feedback with the MEPs
sitting at IMCO as the deadline for tabling amendments passes on July 1st.
======
Data Act
---
Before you ask: No this is not the Data Governance Act, neither the AI
Regulation. Those are still going on and we will get back to them next
month. The European Commission is toying with the idea of proposing yet
another law to force companies share more sectoral data among each other.
The details are murky, as we are in the very beginning of the process.
There’s a roadmap which is currently open for feedback. [10] Companies like
Microsoft, IBM and associations like the CCIA say they hate the idea. As
this procedure officially also covers the potential review of the Database
Directive, we wrote that we would like the sui generis database right to go
away, as there is not proof that it has lead to more investment in
databases in the EU, while there is evidence that the EU is lagging behind
other regions in data sharing (something the sui generis right doesn’t make
easier).
======
wikimedia.brussels
---
In June we blogged about:
-
Takedown Notices and Community Content Moderation
<https://wikimedia.brussels/takedown-notices-and-community-content-moderatio…>:
Wikimedia’s Latest Transparency Report - Dimi takes us through our content
moderation practices and results presented in the report
-
COMMUNIA, the voice for public domain, celebrates 10. anniversary
<https://wikimedia.brussels/communia-the-voice-for-public-domain-celebrates-…>
- Anna explains the role COMMUNIA Association has played in protecting
users’ rights in access to knowledge - and in keeping us all positive and
hopeful amongst the legislative turmoil
-
Wikimedia France: new anti-terrorist bill exposes users to mass
surveillance
<https://wikimedia.brussels/wikimedia-france-new-anti-terrorist-bill-exposes…>
- Naphsica provides insight into the new law proposal that would raise red
flags in the EU if it were proposed anywhere else but France
======
END
======
[1]https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/presidency-council-eu/
[2]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a-zdxR9mWfUgkG-u9hkMYuY-xxAXrD8W/view?usp=…
[3]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HG8U6hHjNAmHY50iwWFMc70j4EUfobgZ/view?usp=…
[4]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-PR-693594_EN.html
[5]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-AM-693906_EN.pdf
[6]
https://www.wikimedia.fr/loi-separatisme-que-vient-faire-wikipedia-dans-cet…
[7]
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/search/?trisaction=sear…
[8]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z88gqC7Mu7FBWq0mr2_pZEX5Sewqys9D/view?usp=…
[9]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-PR-692792_EN.pdf
[10]
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…
Dear Friends,
you have spoken (and thank you for that)! We will convene online on
Thursday, July 1st, 17:00-20:00 CET
Small Lean BXL Meeting: “Brave New EU”
We want to:
- Hear how you have been and what you are up to
- Tell you briefly about this year’s biggest developments in Brussels
- Talk about whatever else you want to talk about
- Open a drink of choice and be merry
- Have “the best working from home outfit” contest (only half joking :))
*How do I get access?*
If you plan to participate we need to ask you to confirm this again to
provide you with access details to the meeting. Apologies, we just don't
want to be gate-crashed with any content that would spoil our good spirit.
There is no deadline, just hit respond to this email and we will know to
let you in in due time.
*Where do I join?*
We are now working out the details of which platform we will use to meet.
We will share it with everyone who confirms participation (for example by
hitting respond to this email).
*I want to tell you about exciting news!*
If you have news to share - wonderful! No need to prepare any of that -
unless you want to show something on screen, have a paralel chat with
interested people, or have any other special request - then please let us
know before we meet so that we can accommodate this.
We are very excited to see you in July!
Cheers,
Anna
--
Anna Mazgal
EU Policy Advisor
Wikimedia
anna(a)wikimedia.be
@a2na
mobile: +32 487 222 945
12 Rue Belliard
BE-1040 Brussels
--
Wikimedia Belgium vzw
BE 0563.775.480
- RPR Brussel
Antwerpselaan 40
Boulevard d’Anvers 1000 Brussel/Bruxelles
www.wikimedia.be
<https://www.wikimedia.be/>
info(a)wikimedia.be <mailto:info@wikimedia.be>
Hello everyone,
I wanted to send a reminder to the list that Wikimania submissions
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2021:Submissions/Guidelines> are due this
week on *June 18th. *Proposals can be submitted either in the "Individual
and Collective of Individuals" track or the "Movement Group and Affiliate"
track. The theme of this year's Wikimania is "Wikimedia's 20th Birthday"
and suggested topics related to policy include: Advocacy, Safety &
Community Health.
This is the first-ever virtual Wikimania, and it will be held from 13–17
August 2021. You can find more information about the submission process and
Wikimania in general in the link above.
Hope to see some of you there!
Best,
Allison Davenport
--
Allison Davenport (she/her)
Senior Public Policy Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
Hi,
We heard before that WMF will be hiring a public policy specialist for
Asian affairs.
https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/careers/career-services-for-students/job-portal/d…
We at ESEAP (East, Southeast Asia & the Pacific) seek an audience from this
person should this person be available.
Thank you.
--
Kind Regards,
Butch Bustria
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only
for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the
intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or
the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the
original message and attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
[apologies for cross-posting]
Dear colleagues,
I would like to share this "save the date" with you about Avaaz's next
event. I hope you can be there to discuss this with us!
---------
Towards a Paris Agreement for Disinformation?
What the EU needs from the new Code of Practice and the Digital Services
Act to turn the tide against disinformation
An online webinar from Avaaz. To register via Eventbrite click here
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/towards-a-paris-agreement-for-disinformation-t…>
On June 24th at 14h30 CET, join us, and keynote speaker EU Vice President
Commissioner Věra Jourová, with leading voices from industry and civil
society for an online conference exploring:
-
Whether this is the moment when the EU can lead a global reduction in
online disinformation, whilst protecting freedom of speech, and produce
what could become the most advanced regulatory framework ever tabled - a
“Paris Agreement” for disinformation.
-
With up to date research on Covid 19 disinformation on social media, one
year on, from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate and Avaaz and a
platform by platform evaluation of their efforts to combat disinformation
and the transparency they provide over their algorithmic black box.
-
Between the Commission's Guidance for a new Code of Practice on
Disinformation just released, and the Digital Services Act that is
coming, what
do we need to deliver an effective framework against disinformation?
Speakers will include:
-
EU Vice President Commissioner Věra Jourová
-
Twitter Vice President for Public Policy EMEA Sinead McSweeney
-
European Parliament DSA Rapporteur Christel Schaldemose
-
Centre for Countering Digital Hate CEO Imran Ahmed
-
Avaaz
To register your interest in this online webinar please follow this link to
Eventbrite: click here
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/towards-a-paris-agreement-for-disinformation-t…>
If you have any questions or comments please email camille.mijola(a)avaaz.org
Hi all
I'm exploring working with an EU member state to help them adopt open
licenses for their content, especially educational and cultural content
from their ministry of culture, museums etc.
Having worked at UNESCO for 6 years I'm pretty familiar with the OER
Recommendation and how that encourages states to adopt open licenses. (Any
thoughts welcome on this also).
My question is are there any recommendations, targets, policies, laws,
funding opportunities etc for EU member states which encourage them to
adopt open licenses for government content or government funded content?
Any suggestions on who to ask this question to?
Thanks very much
Best
[apologies for cross-posting]
Dear colleagues,
I am reaching out because we’re comparing opinions with key experts and
stakeholders on the EU’s new Guidance for the Code of Practice on
Disinformation, and we would love to hear from you. We know this is just
the proposal from the EU Commission and it could be completely watered down
in the negotiations with platforms, but having read the text in detail we
feel that - within the constraints of the Code - the Commission is going
all-in with one of the most advanced frameworks to fight disinformation.
What do we like about it?
-
Considered in the framework of the DSA, the proposal has teeth: It
explicitly states that one of the goals of the Guidance is to evolve the
Code of Practice into a Code of Conduct provisioned by the DSA, which would
turn the commitments assumed under the Code of Practice - as a minimum -
into required risk mitigation measures (art. 27), and potentially directly
enforceable under the DSA. And very large platforms cannot cherry-pick what
suits them, nor opt out of any of the commitments.
-
It encourages the platforms to open up the algorithmic black box through
accountability and transparency, with a commitment to reduce the spread of
disinformation through “safe design” and by excluding false or misleading
content and repeated “disinformers”. It has specific KPIs requiring
disclosure of how many sources have been demoted, and what was their reach
before and after demotion. It also contains a requirement to be transparent
with users about why they are served specific content and give them
algorithmic
choice, that is, the possibility to customise their recommended content,
including by prioritising trustworthy sources. This is combined with the
need to set up a transparency centre where, for each commitment, platforms
need to specify what policies they have implemented, in which languages and
countries they’re available and what are the related KPIs.
-
Its moderation proposals are based on the independent input of
fact-checkers, resting decision-making on what to remove or label out of
the closed policy rooms of the platforms to finally allow open scrutiny of
who has been silenced or corrected - an essential bulwark to freedom of
expression.
-
It treats users with respect - and includes a commitment to inform all
users who have been exposed to disinformation - including alerting them
through retroactive notifications.
-
Above all, it is a detailed proposal across disinformation,
misinformation and influence operations on how the signatories should
write a revised COP, including a rich set of “minimum” service-level KPIs.
Among those, a requirement to share the amount and reach of fact-checked
disinformation identified on the platform - which could become a key
metric, together with structural KPIs, to measure the impact.
What are we more worried about?
-
Absence of participation of the taskforce or extended signatories in the
drafting of the Code itself. Although we welcome the potential to set up
a permanent multi-stakeholder forum to discuss the monitoring,
implementation and future tweaks needed - we think they should have a role
in drafting the Code. Especially considering that commitments will have a
big impact on users, consumers and fundamental rights, it is fundamental
that all voices are included in its drafting. We are encouraging all our
civil society partners to consider joining as signatories to ensure that
the Code is true to the Guidance.
-
The interim monitoring, before the DSA is in place, is not well defined,
and it doesn’t include soft penalties (e.g. increased reporting needs for
those who are not compliant).
-
Big reliance on EDMO, for both data sharing and structural KPIs
development. Considering that EDMO is a new body, with no regulatory
experience, we are concerned about whether or not it will have enough
authority to deal with platforms. Structural KPIs are not outlined yet:
their quality will be crucial to measure impact and hold platforms
accountable and these should be defined through a process that allows for
external scrutiny.
-
Lack of fact-checking sustainability commitments and metrics. The
prominence given to the fact-checking community is a fantastic tribute to
their journalism and places them at the heart of the system, but it is not
accompanied by an indication of how they will be sustained financially -
the sustainability of this independent sector should be addressed.
-
The heavy reliance on the DSA for sanctions when platforms do not put
risk mitigation measures in place means that our advocacy work is even more
important to ensure the DSA keeps and improves articles 26, 27 and 35 to
ensure the co-regulatory backstop and cover all disinformation harmful to
our societies.
This summarises our position, and now we would love to hear yours, either
in writing or we could organise a quick call this week or the next! We are
organising a webinar to discuss and highlight these issues on 24th June,
with a keynote speech from Commission Vice President Vera Jourová. If you
have any recent research on subjects directly affected by the Guidance that
you feel could be highlighted as part of the presentations, please do let
us know as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance,
*Nádia Guerlenda Cabral* *| Avaaz*
Based in Brussels (Belgium)
e: nadia(a)avaaz.org
m: +32 486 463879
s: nadia.gc