Hi, Anna: 


      Thanks for this. 


      How does this affect the financial incentives for commercial social media companies to sell xenophobic ads with no public traceability? 


      How does this legislation compare with the USA Patriot Act, which has been used to imprison people who tried to teach nonviolence to terrorist or people raising money for hospitals on Palestine? 


      Could this legislation be used to make it difficult for people to question the wisdom of supporting the current government of Saudi Arabia, e.g., with transfers of arms and nuclear technology? 


      I ask for several reasons:  (a) Terrorism is miniscule as a cause of death.  More Americans drown in the average year in bathtubs, hot tubs and spas than succumb to terrorism;  similar silliness doubtless also applies to Europe.  (b) A 2008 RAND study showed that only 7% of terrorist groups that ended between 1968 and 2006 were defeated militarily.  83% ended with negotiations or law enforcement.  (c) The primary recruiter and supporter for Islamic terrorism since at least 1999 and continuing today appears to be Saudi Arabia, followed closely by the US.  For detailed references, see the Wikiversity article on "Winning the War on Terror".[1] 


      Would this legislation force the Wikimedia Foundation to take down what I've already written in that article?[1]  I assume the answer to that question is, "no".  However, it seems like it could potentially make it more difficult for people to understand "Why do they hate us" (as US President Bush asked on 2001-09-20. 


      Thanks,
      Spencer Graves, PhD
      Founder
      EffectiveDefense.org
      4550 Warwick Blvd 508
      Kansas City, MO 64111 USA


[1] https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Winning_the_War_on_Terror


On 2019-04-08 10:28, Anna Mazgal wrote:
Dear All,

Civil Liberties committee has just adopted MEP Dalton's compromises as the report on the Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online. There are some amendments added that require further analysis but the key changes are positive:

1. Improvements on definition of terrorist content with exclusions to artistic, journalistic, educational and research purposes
2. Specific measures referring to platforms receiving a substantial number of removal orders; the regulation applies to those that make content available to the public (so a positive limitation)
3. Referrals removed from the proposal with a caveat that Europol referrals should be taken as a priority by platforms when content is flagged (in recital)
4. Specific measures steer away from content filtering and forbid general monitoring.

Unfortunately, the 1h deadline for removing content has been sustained. Interestingly, Rapporteur Dalton called out the European Commission on not understanding the democratic parliamentary process, applying pressure on quick adoption of the file and dismissing debate on controversial issues as unnecessary and going against the goals of the regulation. It is quite a serious accusation as the EC is not supposed to pressure MEPs that way.

After the text is published we will have a more in-depth analysis of other changes and how the whole proposal could affect Wikimedia. The vote in the plenary is planned for next week. After that - the trilogues.

Happy to take on any questions you may have regarding the report.

best wishes,
Anna

--
Anna Mazgal
EU Policy Advisor
Wikimedia
anna@wikimedia.be 
@a2na
mobile: +32 487 222 945
51 Rue du Trône
BE-1050 Brussels

_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy