I have a precise job to be done and decided to check this list for
As you may have read, the European Union is the world's first jurisdiction
to propose legislation on artificial intelligence. 
Long story short: We want to pitch the idea of mandatory open source for AI
systems used by the government. The current proposal contains lots of
fluffy language on transparency and on how citizens should always know
what's happening. We feel that an actual open source requirement would fit
in here. But we need to have concrete amendment suggestions at hand in
order to seriously pitch it. So I decided to trawl this list for brainpower
Thanks and cheers,
It’s rainy and it is a Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act frenzy.
We are very close to seeing something materialise that almost never
happens: the legislator sticking to its timeline. We will try to take
aboard the policy whirl.
Anna & Dimi
This and previous reports on Meta-Wiki:
Digital Services Act (DSA)
Committee Opinions: As you might be aware, there are seven committees
producing opinions for the DMA, which is a lot. This mass activity does
not always always help the parliament being taken seriously, but here we go.
The Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) opinion  asks for a positive legal
protection of anonymous and pseudonymous users, makes sure notices aren’t
automatically considered actual knowledge of something illegal (important
to Wikimedia) and proposes phasing out behavioural personalised targeting
for advertising. The latter shall be impossible for political campaigns and
permissible for commercial advertising only after a conscious opt-in by
users (no “dark patterns”).
The Industry, Trade and Research Committee (ITRE) opinion also goes after
limiting behavioural advertising in its final compromise amendments and
also makes sure that notices aren’t automatically considered to be pointing
to illegal content (which we asked for).  It furthermore wants to
broaden the definition of Very Large Online Platforms (currently starting
at above 45 million users in the EU) to also include platforms that play a
“role in facilitating public debate, economic transactions and the
dissemination of information, opinions and ideas and in influencing how
recipients obtain and communicate information online.” VLOPs will be
designated by the commission and will have to comply with stricter
transparency and reporting requirements.
The Culture and Education Committee (CULT) opinion was passed on Monday.
 It is a tale of more liability for online services and more rights for
rights holders to demand content being taken and staying down.
The Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) opinion is to be voted in the coming
days and in an odd situation. While the final compromise shared by
rapporteur Geoffrey Didier (EPP FR)  do pick up our “notices aren’t
always about illegal content” argument and offers some minor improvements
as to how terms of services are to be enforced, it also seems to bring on
mandatory upload and stay-down filters and mandatory removal of harmful but
legal content. It seems like the EPP rapporteur is at odds with other
centrist groups in the committee and the results of the vote are uncertain.
The lead committee, Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO),
discussed the act, the many opinions and thousands of tabled amendments on
Monday.  This will be the decisive place the parliament position gets
hammered out. While the rapporteur Ms. Schaldmeose’s (S&D DK) priority is
marketplaces and physical goods, her colleagues are focusing on the same
thorny issues as in other committees: Are notices always about illegal
content? How to define VLOPs? Should behavioural advertising be limited? We
expect MEPs to negotiate these questions in the coming two weeks and then
try to find a voting majority on or after 8 November.
Council: The cacophony in the European Parliament is so loud, that not even
the usually well informed and staffed Permanent Representations of large
countries manage to follow all discussions. The Council compromises so far
have been going alright, with the Member States already acknowledging that
notices service providers get aren’t always about illegal content and that
the providers need to have the opportunity to assess and decide. 
On the other hand, quite a few Member States seem to support the idea that
there should be fixed deadlines for deciding on whether to remove content,
24h and 48h, at least for VLOPs. This is an initiative by Germany and
France and part of its future discussion depends on the new German
Another dividing line in the Council is whether the country of origin of
the service will have authority to enforce the DSA or whether to give this
authority also to targeted countries’ authorities. The latter is demanded
by France, the former defended by Ireland, Sweden and the Czech republic.
Digital Markets Act
Just before the summer recess MEPs at the IMCO Committee had submitted
close to 1 200 amendments to the DMA that they looked into during a
committee meeting on September 28. The amendments - or AMs, as we call them
for shorts - go all over the place, ones suggesting expansion and others
shrinking of the scope, quantitative thresholds and possibilities to wiggle
out of the gatekeeper category and resulting obligations. Watch our blog
for a comprehensive analysis coming out soon.
For now we can tell you that Rapporteur Andreas Schwab (EPP, DE) is
sticking to his guns in the latest draft compromise: according to him
the scope should be limited to the most popular services of the biggest
platforms and there is no need for interoperability that users can
meaningfully act on. Schade, Herr Schwab.
In September we took a targetter interest in ePrivacy (that we otherwise
follow through the work of European Digital Rights where we are a member).
The proposal for ePrivacy regulation is ambiguous whether nonprofits will
be able to contact members of our community / individual donors regarding
supporting our organisation after we already did it. The draft makes it
possible for a company to contact customers that already bought services or
products from that company, to advertise similar offers without a new
consent ensuring that they can opt out. 
Nonprofits do not seem to be explicitly included in that possibility and we
want to make MEPs and member states aware that a clarification is needed.
The time is right as the trilogues continue, so get in touch with us if you
would like to join in the effort.
Austrian and Bulgarian Copyright Reform Consultation
The Austrian and Bulgarian governments finally proposed their copyright
reform packages and are asking for public feedback. The former until 13
October , the latter until 15 October.  The good news is that they
both come with a public domain safeguard and decent user rights protections
out of the box. If you speak the languages and are keen on contributing to
our consultations, get in touch!
In September we are looking into AI tools and Wikipedia in a new series of
Wikimedia Projects and AI Tools: vandalism detection
Wikimedia Projects and AI Tools: Designing a “Section Recommendation”
tool without reinforcing biases
ORG UK are objecting to the UK government's proposed Online Safety
Bill; there's a petition  and they say:
"the appointment of a state speech regulator - appointed and directed
by government - will create a sprawling bureaucracy of speech police.
The Home Office and the DCMS will direct what speech must be removed,
filtered and monitored... the Bill’s provisions to block websites,
apps, or services which refuse to cooperate with the speech
regulator’s orders could put household names like Wikipedia, Reddit
and Tumblr in the crosshairs"
Does WMF have a position on this? Has there been any contact with ORG?
[I've put the same question to WMUK, separately]
Hi Andy and all
Yes, I am drafting Wikimedia UK's response to the consultation, in
discussion with Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation (although our
formal submissions will be separate). I'm also in touch with ORG about the
Bill, although not specifically about their petition. Jim Killock, CEO of
ORG, will be at a meeting I'm convening on Monday with several other
individuals and organisations where we will be discussing this, amongst
Andy, I haven't seen a message about this to WMUK but happy to follow up
On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 13:02, <publicpolicy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Send Publicpolicy mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Publicpolicy digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. ORG UK campaign & petition mention Wikipedia (Andy Mabbett)
> 2. Re: ORG UK campaign & petition mention Wikipedia (Owen Blacker)
> 3. Re: ORG UK campaign & petition mention Wikipedia
> (Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov)
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 16:46:35 +0100
> From: Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> Subject: [Publicpolicy] ORG UK campaign & petition mention Wikipedia
> To: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> ORG UK are objecting to the UK government's proposed Online Safety
> Bill; there's a petition  and they say:
> "the appointment of a state speech regulator - appointed and directed
> by government - will create a sprawling bureaucracy of speech police.
> The Home Office and the DCMS will direct what speech must be removed,
> filtered and monitored... the Bill’s provisions to block websites,
> apps, or services which refuse to cooperate with the speech
> regulator’s orders could put household names like Wikipedia, Reddit
> and Tumblr in the crosshairs"
> Does WMF have a position on this? Has there been any contact with ORG?
> [I've put the same question to WMUK, separately]
>  https://action.openrightsgroup.org/stop-state-censorship-online-speech
> Andy Mabbett
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 19:21:40 +0100
> From: Owen Blacker <owen(a)openrightsgroup.org>
> Subject: [Publicpolicy] Re: ORG UK campaign & petition mention
> To: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> For what it's worth, this is the first I've heard of it, as both a member
> of ORG's Advisory Council and a member of this email list 😕
> Ar Iau, 2 Medi 2021 am 16:47 Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> > ORG UK are objecting to the UK government's proposed Online Safety
> > Bill; there's a petition  and they say:
> > "the appointment of a state speech regulator - appointed and directed
> > by government - will create a sprawling bureaucracy of speech police.
> > The Home Office and the DCMS will direct what speech must be removed,
> > filtered and monitored... the Bill’s provisions to block websites,
> > apps, or services which refuse to cooperate with the speech
> > regulator’s orders could put household names like Wikipedia, Reddit
> > and Tumblr in the crosshairs"
> > Does WMF have a position on this? Has there been any contact with ORG?
> > [I've put the same question to WMUK, separately]
> > 
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org