The European Commission is flooding Brussels with the last batch of
legislative proposals, including updated liability for software and AI
tools. Meanwhile online platforms are beginning to look into the
implementation of the Digital Services Act.
The very final version of the text of the Digital Services Act (a
corrigendum) is available  and will be nodded off by the Council and
Parliament in the coming days. After that it will be published in the
Official Journal of the EU and enter into force 20 days after publication.
Most obligations will apply 15 months after entry into force or from 1
January 2024, whichever is later. However, some obligations on providers of
online platforms, such as publishing the number of average active
recipients and obligations on Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) after
designation, will apply from three months after entry into force.
The European Commission is expected to lay out its plans on designation and
supervision of VLOPs by the end of this year. This will take the form of
so-called delegated acts (a.k.a. implementing acts). Apart from a
designation process we also expect the Commission to publish a supervisory
fee structure and how they intend to enforce the rules.
The lead rapporteur for the Data Act, Pilar del Castillo Vera (EPP ES) in
the Industry Committee, has published her draft report with proposed
amendments.  One area where she suggests clarification is the provision
under which governments may request data from services during a “public
emergency”. She tries to integrate the notion of rapidity and explicitly
mentions public health emergencies and major natural disasters. Her
suggestions would also exclude all SMEs from the scope. Another limitation
that she proposed to write into the text is to explicitly exclude “personal
data or data covered by professional secrecy”. Our position on this is the
same as during the DSA: The term “public emergency” and the procedures that
trigger it must be clearly defined.
Meanwhile in the Council the Czech Presidency is moving ahead with the
negotiations among Member States in the Council. There is a proposal to
extend Article 35, which limits the sui generis database right (SGDR), even
further. Under the Czech proposal the SGDR would never apply to machine
generated data. Under the Commission proposal it wouldn’t apply only when a
user asks for access to data generated by a product or service they use. We
welcome the proposal and also spoke in favour of it with relevant MEPs.
Some background: 
The European Commission presented a new AI Liability Directive.  The
stated goal is to complement the AI Act in making sure people and companies
who were harmed by high-risk AI systems (think recruitment, admissions,
autonomous drones, self-driving cars) are able to seek damages. Under the
proposed text the burden of proof on the claimant would be reversed under
certain conditions, as it would be very hard for an outside person to
understand how the AI algorithm works. Also, courts will have the explicit
right to request companies to disclose technical information about their
In a related move, the Commission also presented its proposal for an
updated Product Liability Directive.  This Directive covers all unsafe
products, including software and digital services, meaning it also covers
machine learning algorithms. Under the new rules providers would be
responsible for software updates and patches. The proposal asle makes one
huge exception: free and open source software provided outside the course
of a commercial activity will not be covered. This provision appears in a
recital only. Perhaps it would be best to move it to a proper article.
The European Media Freedom Act was proposed by the European Commission. 
It has the aim of helping journalists and media protect their independence
across the EU, but reads a little like a smörgåsbord covered with soft law
measures. It prohibits Member States from surveilling media or journalists,
except under a “national security” clause. It obliges Member States to have
“open and non-discriminatory” prodecudure for electing heads of public
broadcasters and to distribute public advertising funds fairly. The idea
seems to be that by stating these principles in EU law, citizens and media
would be able to enforce them in court.
As expected, an alteration of the so-called “media exception” resurfaced in
the proposal. Media companies had unsuccessfully tried to make it harder
for online platforms to remove or restrict visibility to their content in
the Digital Services Act. The new provision asks some online platforms to
send registered media outlets a prior warning before removing or
restricting their content. The provision will essentially only apply to
Very Large Online Platforms (as per DSA) that allow business users to offer
goods or services to consumers (as per Regulation on fairness for business
users of online intermediation services).
Combatting Violence Against Women
A directive on combatting violence against women and domestic violence 
is currently in the works of the European Parliament and the Council. While
the piece of legislation doesn’t focus on the online world it nonetheless
has provisions against the non-consensual sharing of intimate or
manipulated material, cyber harassment, cyber stalking and cyber incitement
of violence and hatred. It would mandate that all EU Member States make
these actions punishable as criminal offences. Member States must also
ensure that competent judicial authorities can issue binding legal orders
to remove or disable access to such material from online platforms.
Political Advertising Online
The EU is trying to come up with universal rules on political advertising
online.  The definition of what constitutes political advertising is
quite broad, which is one major point of discussion. It is not directly
related to payment, which causes quite a bit of confusion. Potentially even
a Wikipedia article about a candidate could fall into this category.
However, the obligations are mainly addressed at “providers of advertising
services”, which effectively leaves Wikimedia projects out of scope.
Another point of tension is whether political advertisements can be
targeted. The DSA will already prohibit the use of sensitive personal data
(e.g. political preferences, sexual orientation, religous beliefs), but
some lawmakers would like to go further. Others say that politicians should
be able to target voters online with ads only if they have explicitly
agreed to give some data like gender, age and location. A clear majority is
not in sight.
Big Fat Brussels Meeting
We have published the dates, location and a draft agenda for this year’s
Big Fat Brussels Meeting (2 &3 December). Feel free to add your name to the
participants list if you plan to come:
(Read this message in other languages on Meta-wiki
español • Русский • বাংলা • 한국어 • Português • العربية •हिन्दी • עברית
• Ìgbò • català• Yoruba)
TL;DR: The draft leadership definition prepared by the Leadership
Development Working Group is ready for community feedback! Please share
your feedback on Meta, the feedback form or the Movement Strategy
Forum. You can also directly mail us at
leadershipworkinggroup(a)wikimedia.org. The feedback will be collected till
October 6, 2022.
I hope you are aware that the Leadership Development Working Group has
been working over the past few months to formulate and find ways to nurture
the leadership of our movement. The Leadership Development Working Group
(LDWG) is a group of Wikimedia volunteers representing different
communities, languages, roles, and experiences. We are pleased to inform
the community that our draft definition of leadership is now available for
community feedback. This first draft definition of leadership was written
after months of discussion, learning, and sharing from our community
perspective. The Wikimedia Movement, which is by nature diverse and
distinctive in its own way, is expressly addressed by this definition.
Please consider going through the definition and letting us know what you
think by *October 6, 20**22.* The draft definition includes a general
definition of leadership and subcategories that elaborate on the actions,
qualities, and outcomes of good leadership.
There are many places where you can express your ideas, suggestions, and
comments, such as the meta talk page, the feedback form, and Movement
Strategy Forum Post. You can also directly mail us at
You can check if the general definition, and the subcategories align with
your idea of leadership in the movement. You can also try finding the gaps,
maybe some qualities of a leader or anything else are missing in the draft
definition or you can check if the definition applies to all cultural,
linguistic, community or other contexts of the movement and share your
thoughts with us.
Together, let's celebrate the movement's diverse and distinctive
 Link to the draft definition on meta
 Link to meta talk page
 Link to the feedback form <https://forms.gle/o7a4FYV8ZkisJF3KA>
 Link to the Movement Strategy Forum post
 Link to the meta page of LDWG
Program Support Associate
You are warmly invited to the Global Advocacy/Public Policy team's monthly
conversation hour on *September 24 & 29* about *anti-surveillance *efforts
within the Free Knowledge Movement*.*
Our guest speakers are Andri Humardhani (Board of Wikimedia Indonesia),
Pepe Flores (President of Wikimedia Mexico) and Kate Ruane (WMF). All
details including how to add to the agenda can be found on on Meta
Hope to see you there!
Ziski & the Global Advocacy Team
Franziska Putz (she/her)
Movement Advocacy Manager, Global Advocacy
It has been a couple of years that we have had a proper meet-up of
volunteers and staff working on public policy issues in Europe, a.k.a. a
Big Fat Brussels Meeting.
Recently we were consumed by an array of organisational and administrative
questions, but policy work is continuing and we would like to bring the
focus and movement attention back to it. Exciting files are on the line,
such as the Data Act, the AI Act, initiatives on content moderation
against child abuse material, disinformation, media freedom, right to
repair, net neutrality and more.
We were wondering whether it would make sense to get together at the
beginning of December? If you're interested, please indicate in this poll
whether any of the dates 2-4 December would work for you:
If we see that many interested people can't make it, we may move the event
to the first quarter 2023.
Thanks and cheers,
The WMF Global Advocacy team has released our "Don't Blink" monthly retrospective for August:
The blog post covers the actions we’ve taken this past month to advance fundamental rights online. Highlights include:
* Asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take our lawsuit against mass surveillance. To learn more, join our monthly conversation hour at the end of September.
* Collaborations with Wikimedia Chile to connect with government officials, researchers, academics, civil society organizations, and legislators in Chile to raise awareness and advance public policy priorities to promote the free knowledge movement.
* The Global Advocacy team's recently published ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQ) resource on Meta-Wiki!
If you want more information about any of these initiatives, or wish to share something of your own, join us at our monthly conversation hours at the end of the month. Details can be found on our Meta-Wiki page: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_policy/Conversation_hours_and_Events>
We hope you enjoy the read!
Ziski & The Global Advocacy Team