Hi Tilman,
Thank you for your in-depth look at the F5 public policy paper and the questions! On your first concern: F5 claims lead to the assumption that Wikipedia ""only" "function as space[] for public discourse" if the EU Commission intervenes with enforcements". It is true that the enforcement of the DSA, DMA "and other digital laws" will not help increase the editor base of Wikipedia. Also, as a VLOP, Wikipedia has to be compliant with the DSA rules and F5 wants the EU Commission to enforce these rules. Also, at F5 we believe that "platforms function as spaces for public discourse" "only" "where users are not consistently exposed to the negative effects of current monopoly structures and a lack of participation". Without doubt, "negative effects of current monopoly structure" we don't have at Wikipedia as the movement is not structured top down. Do we have negative effects due to a lack of participation? Sure. But these negative effects do not reach a threshold where DSA based rules enforcement is needed. The WMF - as any other VLOP - has to prepare with a regular Risk Assessment Reporting that the actual space for public discourse remains. You sure know that even though Wikipedia is far away from allowing Hate Speech or similar language that may stifle or block participation in discourse, we want to improve diversity and the level of participation. Your second point concerns the burdens of a being VLOP under DSA rules. Correct, there is more work than before to be compliant with the DSA. Even though the WMF realized that a lot of the DSA obligations were already in place and the DSA in a way helped to fill in the gaps. However, we do not lobby for the DSA becoming "more demanding", we advocate for effective enforcement as it is. This is not at all hampering Wikipedia as we are already complying - unlike others. Would we rather not have the DSA because it still creates more work and compliance efforts for the WMF and eats up a higher share of the donor money? Probably. But the reality on commercial platforms led states to consider freedom of speech online protection mechanisms and it is beyond our power to stop rule making. We would prefer one single set of EU rules, rather than 27 parallel rulebooks, and proper DSA enforcement would help us go in this direction. With the said demand, we want all VLOPS to fulfill the obligations, specifically those that commercialize a polarization of online discourse. Your third concern touches on the Wikipedia test and why we leave it to "regulators themselves to assess and address them [unintended harm to Wikipedia and sister projects] after the fact. Instead it makes more sense to me to proactively flag them in advance". Your idea is exactly what the Wikipedia test is about. We offer to test any rule making before it becomes legally binding, ideally at a draft level. That is our main learning from the DSA legislation lobbying where specifically due to the work of WMEU we achieved exemptions for non-commercial decentralized online projects but also in the national laws (Digitale Dienste Gesetz). The test will be offered to German legislators as well and we are in coordination with other affiliates here. Your fourth concern is that F5 is encouraging "overly aggressive threats to use the DSA against various against platforms" or "jawboning <https://verfassungsblog.de/ruling-by-bullying/>" (I like the expression). Yes, you could read that into the F5 demands as language nowadays gets glazed over and "protect freedom of speech" in certain circumstances means rather the opposite. But we are calling specifical for rule enforcing "in a targeted, effective and responsible manner". We want the EU Commission to remain firm in their approach to VLOPs even though "a new legislative period" - and different majorities in the EU ParliamentHi - are the realities besides a U.S. government that tries to soften EU regulation. Your fifth concern applies to the F5 demand, "digital services should be obliged to amplify reliable news and information sources" as it may interfere with" the editor's autonomy in determining what they consider as reliable sources" because these assessments may differ. Plus, the examples on ANI and and Le Point prove, that differences about these assessments between editors and these media outlets can result in interference on editors autonomy if court ordered. You really have a point here. We wanted to address that, "on the Internet, algorithms tend to amplify the extremes – sensationalism, rumours, hate and falsehoods. Opinion and beliefs trump facts" (JTI, Reporters without Borders <https://www.journalismtrustinitiative.org/>). Wikimedia projects do not amplify rumours and such, therefore this demand does not apply. More critical may be the definition of trustworthiness. Up to now, The European Union Digital Online Observatory (EDMO) in a research paper to distinct between "rumors" and "trustworthiness" defines "trustworthiness" (p.8) <https://edmo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Enhancing-Content-Reliability-by-Prominence.-Indicators-for-Trustworthy-Online-Sources-Report.pdf> : "trustworthiness, (often connected with credibility), is a term that refers to the source or publisher of a piece of information. A publisher of information can be regarded as trustworthy (or credible) when the users’ chance of being exposed to false or misleading content (dis- but also misinformation) by that source is relatively low. Moreover, it is expected that a trustworthy publisher has a procedure in place to make sufficient and timely corrections, for any case wherein false or misleading content is suspected. A trustworthy source of information is, generally, transparent in its ownership, authorship and sourcing of information. In addition, it holds procedures in place to clearly label advertisements and monitor paid content, as well as to separate fact from opinion." The Wikimedia projects understand the reliability of sources in the understanding above and we do not demand more. However, it is important to monitor if these criteria change or if there may be any other obligations, like, documentation about reliability. We will try to defend the existing autonomy at a lobby level, of course, whereas influencing court rulings is not possible. Your last concern touched on missed opportunities to include Wikipedia editors in the demand to protect them from surveillance, attacs and SLAPPs, while, at the same time, calling for protection of journalists. Indeed, we discussed including Wikipedia editors and decided not to include them as volunteer editors are not journalists and better not so. In hindsight, you are right, we could as well have found a clever phrasing to include Wiki editors without mixing them with journalists. The SLAPP directive <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401069> for example writes, it "should apply to any natural or legal person who directly or indirectly engages in public participation." However, we are very aware of the situation for the volunteers and just yesterday again we shared our concern with members of the Ministry of Interior, we addressed the NoSLAPP Anlaufstelle and the relevant desk at the Ministry of Justice Germany. I regret your impression that Wikimedia Deutschland may have been entirely unaware of it but yes, just from reading the F5 document that impression has a justification. I hope I have answered your questions, otherwise feel free to contact me or the WMDE Policy Team via [email protected]! Best regards and have a good weekend Lilli Am So., 23. Feb. 2025 um 18:15 Uhr schrieb Tilman Bayer <[email protected] >: > Hi Lilli, > Thanks for sharing the political positions that Wikimedia Deutschland had > been advocating for on behalf of the Wikimedia movement. It's a bit odd > though that this publication happened only in retrospect, i.e. that > Wikimedians were learning about these positions only after the politicians > and officials that you had communicated them to. > > As for the content itself: A lot of good points overall, e.g. on the > importance of open source software, privacy and free access to knowledge > (sections 3,4 and 5). But I was puzzled by various things in sections 1 and > 2, on platforms and AI. To focus just on section 1 for now: > > >1. Platforms: Regulate and restructure > > In the short term, only rules and their enforcement will help > > The EU is starting a new legislative period with new supervisory > > structures and legislative tools such as the Digital Services Act, > > the Digital Markets Act, and other digital laws. The Commission > > must now prove that it can enforce those rules in a targeted, > > effective and responsible manner in all EU member states. Only > > then can online platforms function as spaces for public discourse > > where users are not consistently exposed to the negative effects > > of current monopoly structures and a lack of participation. > > It's pretty weird that Wikimedia Deutschland appears to think that > Wikipedia, as one of these platforms, can "only" "function as space[] for > public discourse" if the EU Commission intervenes with enforcements. E.g. > re "lack of participation", I don't want to downplay concerns about > decreasing or stagnating editor numbers on the German Wikipedia and other > Wikimedia projects. But I'm very skeptical that enforcement of the DSA, DMA > "and other digital laws" against them will help with these issues. > > > "The DSA obliges Very Large Online Platforms and search engines > > to identify and minimize systemic risks arising from the design, > > functioning or use of their services at an early stage. Such systemic > > risks include, for example, negative effects on fundamental rights, > > risks to elections or democratic discourse. In light of the EU elections, > > the Commission has published guidelines for service operators. > > These must now be implemented and supervised swiftly. > > I sense zero awareness here of the burdens and downsides that this imposes > on "service operators" - or the fact these VLOPs include Wikipedia too. As > Franziska wrote since in another thread on this list: > > > A lot of civil society and even government officials still haven't > > noticed that we are a 'very large online platform' (VLOP) under > > the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), which poses a risk to us if they > > are advocating for enforcement processes and mechanisms that > > don't take Wikimedia projects into account at all. > Frankly, the F5 positions paper gives the strong impression that it comes > from that part of civil society. > > And these burdens and downsides are not theoretical, as was explained e.g. > here > <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/08/26/wikimedia-foundation-defeats-gambling-magnates-lawsuit-in-germany/> > : > > the Foundation has a limited legal budget to spend on local law > > firms, and an even smaller in-house team of lawyers. The > > Foundation’s legal team now also has to deal with a wave of new > > and very demanding “online safety” laws across the world: for > > example, the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK Online > > Safety Act. > This makes it even stranger that Wikimedia Deutschland lobbies politicians > and EU officials so enthusiastically to make the DSA even more demanding. > (The voluminous DSA audit and SRAM register documents that the Foundation > has since published illustrate such burdens. It looks like a > substantial amount of donor money went into producing them. And looking > over them while working on this Signpost article > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-12-24/News_and_notes#Independent_audit_for_%22responsibilization%22_of_Wikipedia_as_a_VLOP_completed> > left > me with doubts about how much benefit, if any, they bring for our work as > Wikipedians.) > > Yes, I see that much further down in the F5 document, a "Protect > decentralized and community-driven projects in new legislation" paragraph > has been tacked on, warning that > > In the past, European legislation has unintentionally damaged such > > community projects (such as Wikipedia or its sister projects). To > > avoid this in the future, we propose a regulatory test to assess the > > impact of new laws on these kinds of projects. > (one of only two mentions of Wikipedia in the entire document btw) > > It's good to see at least some awareness of the possibility for unintended > consequences for our projects. But it seems very shortsighted to leave it > to regulators themselves to assess and address them after the fact. Instead > it makes more sense to me to proactively flag them in advance, and to > refrain from endorsing legislation and enforcement measures that have a > clear potential to end up harming Wikipedia. That also appears to have > been, by and large, the approach that WMF, Wikimedia Europe and numerous > other Wikimedia affiliates around the world have been taking in their > policy work. I'm curious why Wikimedia Deutschland appears to have diverted > from it here. > > And to look beyond Wikipedia and focus only on for-profit VLOPs for a > moment: > > One of the Commissioners whom F5 exhorted to take swift and strong actions > against platforms ("The Commission must demonstrate" etc.) is Thierry > Breton. Which is rather peculiar, as he had been previously been called out > by "[a] coalition of 65 nonprofits — including Access Now, Electronic > Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Article 19" for his overly aggressive threats > to use the DSA against various against platforms: > https://www.politico.eu/article/ngos-call-on-breton-to-stand-against-social-media-shutdowns/ > (in > context of protests in his own country against his own political > associates, no less) > > In this context, that kind of "Auf sie mit Gebrüll!"/'go get them!" > approach against platforms that Wikimedia Deutschland advocates in the F5 > positions seems tone-deaf as well. (Yes, that particular commissioner > fortunately didn't make it into the new Commission eventually. But that > wouldn't make it less problematic to encourage such jawboning > <https://verfassungsblog.de/ruling-by-bullying/> behavior by officials.) > > > Ensure effective user rights enforcement: European rules on the > > jurisdiction of courts need to be updated to ensure that all internet > > users of online platforms are granted their rights. European law > > provides that consumers can take companies to court in their country > > of residence. However, many users of online platforms who are > > particularly affected by arbitrary and unlawful decisions by platforms > > are not consumers: Politicians, researchers or journalists are often > > forced to take legal action in the platform‘s country of domicile, in > > most cases Ireland. This makes the effective enforcement of users‘ > > rights expensive and cumbersome. > Over its history, Wikipedia has seen lots of "legal action" by politicians > and others who signed up as Wikipedia users to try to force through > their preferred edits of the article about themselves, arguing that the > community's rejection of these edits is "arbitrary and unlawful". E.g. > just this week, Wikimedia France expressed its great concerns > <https://www.wikimedia.fr/reaction-de-wikimedia-france-suite-aux-menaces-du-magazine-le-point-envers-des-benevoles-de-wikipedia/> > about > legal threats brought by a journalist from a French weekly news magazine > against Wikipedians, with the magazine's lawyers specifically claiming > that Wikipedia is in violation of the DSA > <https://www.marianne.net/societe/maltraite-dans-wikipedia-le-point-adresse-une-mise-en-demeure-a-la-wikimedia-foundation> > in > a formal notice delivered to WMF. Fortunately such attempts are often > unsuccessful. But even if they are, they can impose significant costs and > chilling effects on our movement. > > So I'm puzzled why Wikimedia Deutschland appears to advocate for making > such lawsuits cheaper and easier for plaintiffs. It's also entirely unclear > to me how free knowledge would benefit from Wikipedia being sued more > easily (or by more people) in Hungary and other EU countries with > problematic legal environments. > > In that context it's also noteworthy that the F5 document largely portrays > platforms and news organizations as adversaries, and clearly tries to take > the side of the latter. E.g.: > > To counter the spread of disinformation and strengthen the right > > to information, digital services should be obliged to amplify reliable > > news and information sources in their news feeds as well as search > > engines using recognized standards for identifying trustworthy > > content, such as the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI). > Does Wikimedia Deutschland have concrete proposals or expectations about > how this obligation should look like for Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia > or Wikinews? Has Wikimedia Deutschland made efforts to consult with the > volunteer communities of these projects before embarking on advocacy for > legal regulations that might interfere with editors' autonomy in > determining what they consider as reliable sources? Sure, that Journalism > Trust Initiative looks like a valiant effort to address problems with bad > journalism. It conceivably could be of value for Wikimedians in evaluating > the reliability of news media sources, too. But making its use mandatory? > > And, in case Wikimedia Deutschland is not aware, there has been quite a > history already of acrimonious conflicts between news organizations and the > Wikipedia community about the latter's assessment of the former's > reliability. Above I already mentioned a current case involving a French > political news magazine. The recent Asian News International vs. WMF case > in India (where a news organization is going after individual Wikipedia > editors in an unprecedented manner) has caused great concern in the > community > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-11-06/News_and_notes>, > with a record number of over 1300 Wikipedians signing an open letter. > Previously, we had the UK's largest newspaper reacting very badly to the > English Wikipedia community's decision to classify it as an unreliable > source. > > It would be entirely unsurprising if the new legal tools ("obliged to > amplify") that Wikimedia Deutschland is advocating for end up getting > used against Wikipedians or the WMF in such conflicts. It's understandable > that your F5 partner organization from the news industry highlights the > best parts instead of the worst parts of said industry in its advocacy. But > laws tend to not make such distinctions. > > Relatedly: > > The European institutions must exert pressure on EU member states > > to punish crimes against journalists and effectively protect them from > > arbitrary surveillance, physical attacks and strategic lawsuits against > > public participation (SLAPPs). > Good for the news media. But it seems that Wikimedia Deutschland has > missed a major opportunity to include Wikipedia editors here too. Both > Wikimedia Europe and the Wikimedia Foundation have called out a lack of > SLAPP protections for Wikipedians in Europe as a significant concern (see > e.g. > https://wikimedia.brussels/the-worrisome-phenomenon-of-slapps-in-europe-the-new-2024-case-report/ > ). In contrast, the F5 document gives the impression that Wikimedia > Deutschland (or at least the WMDE employees involved in producing the > document) may have been entirely unaware of it. > > Regards, Tilman > > PS: I am referring to the English version of your document throughout. I > realized after reading that some problematic wordings might be translation > missteps. (Example from the introduction: "... und Medien so ihre > gesellschaftliche Kontrollfunktion wahrnehmen können" should probably not > be translated as "and the media can thus fulfill their function of social > control". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_control ) > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 8:24 AM Lilli Iliev <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > As Wikimedia Deutschland, we have been part of the "Bündnis F5" - F5 > Alliance for digital policy for the common good since 2021. We founded this > digital policy alliance with AlgorithmWatch, Society for civic rights, Open > Knolwedge Foundation Deutschland and Reporters Without Borders to jointly > develop more political weight for our shared objectives. The core of our > work is a structured dialog with policymakers on digital policy issues, > such as framework conditions for free access to information, privacy, open > data, transparency and hate speech online. > > > > As alliance F5, we have compiled political positions on the EU > elections. They show what measures and laws we believe are needed to > realize the vision of an open, free, reliable, sustainable and secure > internet. The positions were sent to EU candidates and selected officials, > such as European and international digital policy officers, as well as > advertised on social media and form the basis for related discussions. > > > > You can find them on Wikimedia Commons here: > > > > Political positions on the EU elections (English) > > Political positions on the EU elections (German) > > ...and as pdf attached. > > > > The central points of our demands paper are: > > > > Platforms: Regulate and restructure > > Artificial intelligence: Fair and sustainable > > Open source software & open hardware: Foundation of the future > > Strengthen privacy, protect journalists > > Digital Knowledge Act: A new era of free knowledge > > > > Wikimedia has focused on the 5th point of the Digital Knowledge Act, in > line with the demands of Wikimedia Europe. Please do not hesitate to > contact us if you have any questions on this. > > A recommendation in this context: Last week, re:publica, Europe's > largest conference on digital rights, took place in Berlin. We were lucky > enough to have Rebecca MacKinnon there to discuss the Global Digital > Compact on a high-level panel: > > > > Renata Dwan (Special Adviser Office of the UN Secretary-General's Envoy > on Technology), Rebecca MacKinnon (Vice President, Global Advocacy, > Wikimedia Foundation), Jens Matthias Lorentz (Head of Digital Politics and > AI in Foreign Policy Group, Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Jeanette Hofmann > (Director at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society > and Professor of Internet Policy): > > Who cares about international digital policy? What do we expect from the > UN Global Digital Compact 2024 (English) > > > > best regards > > Lilli & team politics and public sector at WMDE > > > > > > -- > > Lilli Iliev (sie) > > > > Leitung Politik und öffentlicher Sektor > > head of public policy and public sector > > > > @[email protected] > > > > ----------------------------- > > Bleiben Sie auf dem neuesten Stand! Aktuelle Nachrichten und spannende > Geschichten rund um Wikimedia, Wikipedia und Freies Wissen im Newsletter: > Zur Anmeldung. > > ------------------------------ > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin > http://wikimedia.de Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch > an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. > > Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ > > > > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. > > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Charlottenburg, VR 23855 > B. > > Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I > Berlin, > > Steuernummer 27/029/42207. Geschäftsführende Vorstände: Franziska Heine, > Dr. Christian Humborg. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
