Let’s start with the unpleasant: The war in Ukraine has of course made it
to the top of everyone’s agenda, as it should. Work on files still
continues, but the energy is different and we expect the pace to slow down.
At the same time, this war is being played out on online platforms and
certain aspects are being picked up by lawmakers when discussing their
regulation.
====================
DIGITAL SERVICES ACT
====================
The DSA is in trilogue, i.e. the three main EU bodies have adopted their
respective positions and are now trying to hammer out a common version. Our
main headache in the original proposal was the notion of automatic
assumption of “actual knowledge” of illegal content upon receipt of a user
notice. The fix to that seems uncontested. We are still waiting for news on
the definitions article, where the Parliament added a differentiation
between content moderation by the service provider and users. Something we
asked for and supported.
-
Else, the dark pattern prohibition proposed by the Parliament (designs that
nudge users to accept tracking) seems to be welcomed by Member States.
-
On a more general note, we are seeing the Russian Invasion starting to play
a role in discussions about content moderation. Lawmakers were called out
<https://twitter.com/Gary_Machado_/status/1497668398519656450> for having
proposed a “media exemption” which would prohibit online platforms from
interfering with media content. Something they are currently asked to do
to stem disinformation about the war. There is also some interest in how
Wikipedia handles such fast-developing news and events. We plan to reshape a
great Twitter thread <https://twitter.com/sdkb42/status/1497407518968012807>
into a blogpost for lawmakers, in order to explain community content
moderation better.
====================
Data Act
====================
Last week the European Commission presented its Data Act
<https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/83521> proposal. A
Regulation that is mainly focused on business to business data sharing and
portability, but that also includes a few elements we care about.
—
It empowers users to have access to data a service or device has produced
and be able to port it (articles 4&5), which is welcome. It also would allow
governments to access business data in extraordinary circumstances, like a
global pandemic (Chapter V). Safeguards and limitations need to be
waterproof here.
—
Most importantly, though, the Data Act also contains “a revision” of the sui
generis database right (SGDR). A copyright-like additional layer on
non-original databases that we would like to see abolished. In Chapter X
the Commission “clarifies” that these protections can’t apply to machine
generated data. We think that doesn’t go far enough
<https://wikimedia.brussels/data-act-a-small-step-for-databasees-an-even-smaller-step-for-the-eu/>
and are drafting an amendment
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KvvYz06hUCs2Z2u4HLFXKIQKfWSFjb-LmYWPawwbhFs/edit?usp=sharing>
to get rid of a much larger chunk of unwanted SGDR protection. Our
umbrella association Communia is also organising a Salon on the SGDR
<https://vimeo.com/webinars/events/065f5169-9a7a-40a8-8f87-9dcaa37ae7f2> on
2 March.
====================
The Digital Markets Act
====================
The conversation about imposing an interoperability obligation on
gatekeepers is stuck. The Commission is “looking for evidence” from
messaging services that interoperability is actually needed, while smaller
providers are insecure about it as too many details are still unclear.
In the meantime, civil society (including us) circulated an open letter to
the Commission, the French Presidency and MEPs on involving users in
enforcement procedures
<https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/21/BEUC-X-2022-023-open-civil-society-letter-on-the-DMA.pdf>
.
====================
Artificial Intelligence Act
====================
The AI Act that is now being mulled over in a number of parliamentary
committees
<https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2021/0106(COD)&l=en>
deals with three instances of AI use: prohibited, high-risk, and one that
requires special transparency. That last category includes instances of
individuals interacting with an AI-based bot, when emotion recognition or
biometric categorisation is required, or in the case of deep fakes. We
don’t think that any artificial intelligence tools Wikimedia editors and
staff currently use are covered by the new obligations, but as lawmakers
start editing the proposal we need to stay on top of changes. The
discussion around deep fakes is of particular interest to us, as Wikimedia
content can be used for their creation, but also such content could become
a misleading source of information.
====================
Online Political Advertising .
====================
Normally this regulation
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0731>
should only do what its name says: set clear rules on political
advertising, especially during electoral campaigns. However, the definition
of political advertising has us somewhat worried, so we are running an
extra check on it:
*Article 2.2*
‘political advertising’ means the preparation, placement, promotion,
publication or dissemination, by any means, of a message:
(a) by, for or on behalf of a political actor, unless it is of a purely
private or a purely commercial nature;
or
(b) which is liable to influence the outcome of an election or referendum,
a legislative or regulatory process or voting behaviour.
====================
Finland Copyright Reform
====================
The copyright reform in Finland was going rather well. User rights were
being enshrined and balanced exceptions drafted. But over the past months
collective management organisations (CMOs) in Finland have pushed very hard
and the lead civil servant was replaced essentially by a lobbyist hired as
a chief consultant to the Ministry. The Ministry has now redrafted the
document, but it refused to present the new version. Instead they just let
bits of information slip out. It seems like they are opting for a rewrite
that maximises CMO turnover and includes the bare minimum in terms of user
rights. For information on this Finnish drama we have only Finnish language
sources (ask a Finn or use deepl):
-
Electronic Frontier Finland complaint
<https://effi.org/lex-liedes-effi-kanteli-oikeuskanslerille/>
-
The presentation of the new version
<https://api.hankeikkuna.fi/asiakirjat/ea5be8e5-c718-4049-8836-5d7fa9589c18/92063543-7d10-404a-a437-0b36d4e4ef83/LIITE_20220211103613.pdf>