Alexandra GEESE

Policy topics Alexandra GEESE is active on

What Alexandra GEESE has said (69)

• 2026-06-16 “Perfect. Thank you. President, commissioner, colleague colleagues. The USS government banned the use of its AI model for non US citizens. And and for this US administration, we're not partners. We are enemies. And here, at the the latest, we must realize how risky it is to be dependent on foreign technology. We finally have the tech sovereignty package, which this parliament has been calling for. But this package is a disappointment. And innovation and security made in Europe, that's lacking in this package. We must, see the elephant in the room. US tech companies aren't trusted partners anymore. They're together with president Trump. They're seeking world domination and the removal of a rules based economy. We deserve more better in Europe, this parliament. And we as a whole now have to fight now.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2026-06-16 “So we can yeah. Thank you for that question. I mean, have you ever looked at the cost of nuclear energy? It's the most expensive form of energy. So do you want our citizens to subsidize that energy in order to have American AI so Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and a lot of other US companies can make money? Because this is what happening in The US. In The US, it's the citizens who are paying a higher electricity bills, and this is why they are revolting at AI. Look at the numbers. What we can do in Europe, and this is where the commission is looking in the right direction, is having more renewable energy. Big build up of renewable energy, that's the way to go from Europe. Everything else will be too expensive.”
  Nuclear energy
• 2026-06-16 “So yeah, thank you for that question. I mean, have you ever looked at the cost of nuclear energy? It's the most expensive form of energy. So do you want our citizens to subsidise that energy in order to have American AI? So Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and a lot of other US companies can make money because this is what's happening in the US. In the US, it's the citizens who are paying a higher electricity bills and this is why they are revolting at AI. Look at the numbers. What we can do in Europe and this is where the commission is looking in the right direction, is having more renewable energy, big build up, renewable energy. That's the way to go for Europe. Everything else will be too expensive.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2026-06-16 “I'm pretty surprised about your ignorance. Look at the prices of energy. Look how the French government has to subsidize energy. Nuclear energy is not an option. Who is going to pay for that? You know, this is exactly in the US where they have atomic energy. They use gas and oil for AI with really serious devastating consequences for the climate. Is this the world you want our kids to live in? You know that nuclear energy is too expensive and you don't need that kind of stability. Renewable energy and a good grid can give us everything we need. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• 2026-06-16 “The US government banned the use of its AI model for non US citizens and and for this US administration. We're not partners. We are enemies. And here at the latest, we must realize how risky it is to be dependent on foreign technology. We finally have the tech sovereignty package which this Parliament has been calling for. But this package is a disappointment and innovation and security made in Europe that's lacking in this package. We must see the elephant in the room. U.s. tech companies aren't trusted partners anymore. They're together with President Trump. They're seeking world domination and the removal of a rules based economy. We deserve more, better in Europe. This Parliament and we as a whole must have to fight now.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2026-06-16 “Yeah. I'm I'm pretty surprised about your ignorance. Look at the prices of energy. Look how the French government has to subsidize energy. Nuclear energy is not an option. Who is gonna pay for that? You know? This is exactly in in in The US, when they have atomic energy, they use gas and oil for AI with really serious devastating consequences for the climate. Is this the world you want our kids to live in? You know that nuclear energy is too expensive, and you don't need that kind of stability. Renewable energy and a good grid can give us everything we need. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• 2025-10-08 “E-003960/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) is an important element in the EU's approach to address online disinformation. EDMO is an independent multidisciplinary community carrying out crucial activities to better understand the (dis)information landscape, collect evidence of disinformation campaigns on online platforms and build societal resilience. Commission funding requires EDMO participants to adhere to strict governance standards. The Commission requires that EDMO’s independence framework includes clear safeguards and transparency measures designed to guarantee the independence and editorial autonomy of all organisations and personnel involved in EDMO from public and private parties, including online platforms. EDMO provides scientific advice to EMIF but does not manage it. This advisory role is not Commission funded and is strictly maintained under a condition of EDMO’s full independence from the fund and the donors 1 . EDMO’s contributions, including to public consultations, address a broad range of issues, such as supporting independent fact-checking organisations, advocating for researcher data access and promoting transparency of algorithms and recommender systems. This focus reflects the needs of the academic and civil society communities, not the interests of large online platforms. EDMO has always operated professionally, showing no evidence of Google’s influence in its operations or its contribution to the European Democracy Shield. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation. Support to an independent factchecking community is essential to the Shield's objectives and a key component of the Commission's democracy-related proposals for the next Multiannual Financial Framework. 1 As defined in the Guidance issued by the EDMO Advisory Board - https://gulbenkian.pt/emifund/edmosscientific-focus/.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2025-10-07 “E-003925/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has taken note of the announcements around the sale of TikTok’s United States (US) operations to US investors. The Commission is in contact with TikTok and follows closely the developments in the US. The Commission supervises and enforces the Digital Services Act 1 (DSA) vis-a-vis very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs) services offered to users in the EU. As a general matter, the Commission does not comment on events that occurred outside of the EU. Pending additional information on the scope of the announced changes around TikTok’s algorithms, the Commission cannot ascertain, at this point in time, whether users in the EU will be impacted by such changes. Under the DSA, the providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs are required at least once every year to diligently assess the systemic risks, including the risks of negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, stemming from the design or functioning of their service and its related systems, including algorithmic systems, and are required to adopt effective mitigation measures. Additional risk assessments are required prior to deploying any new functionalities that are likely to have a critical impact on such risks. The Commission is monitoring closely the compliance by all providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs, including the provider of TikTok, with their obligations under the DSA. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms · Recommender systems
• 2025-01-13 “E-000093/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission Democracy is a core value of the EU, with free and fair elections at its heart. Member States are responsible for organising elections according to national constitutional rules, legislation, international obligations, and EU law. The Commission supports Member States in election matters mainly via the Framework of the European Coordination Network on Elections. The Commission monitors compliance by providers of very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs) with the Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 in relation to the provision of those services in the EU and has provided election guidance 2 . For the German Federal election, the Bundesnetzagentur and the Commission have organised an election roundtable 3 and a stress test 4 involving providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs, German authorities, and civil society. Signatories of the EU Code of Conduct on Disinformation, which contains election commitments, have activated the Rapid Response System for the elections 5 . The Commission has been investigating X 6 , designated as a VLOP, for suspected breaches of, amongst others, Articles 34(1) and (2) and 35(1) DSA which oblige to diligently assess systemic risks and put in place effective mitigation measures. The current investigations include risks to civic discourse and elections in the EU, including risks stemming from the design and functioning of its algorithm. Recently, the Commission ordered X 7 to preserve documents on future changes to the design and functioning of its recommender algorithms. The Commission also requested internal documentation on its recommender system relating to past changes and ordered access to certain technical interfaces to allow fact-finding on content moderation and account virality. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065 2 The Commission has published guidelines for providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs on the mitigation of systemic risks for electoral processes: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-providers-vlops-andvloses-mitigation-systemic-risks-electoral-processes 3 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/digital-services-coordinator-germany-hosts-roundtable-onlineplatforms 4 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/german-digital-services-coordinator-tests-platforms-readinessunder-digital-services-act 5 Previously used in EU, French, Romanian, and Croatian elections, the RRS allows non-platform signatories to quickly report time-sensitive threats to electoral integrity with platforms based on their policies. 6 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-and-vloses 7 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-addresses-additional-investigatory-measures-xongoing-proceedings-under-digital-services”
  Disinformation & online freedoms · Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• 2024-12-09 “E-002826/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is strongly committed to enforcing the Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 to ensure users have more choices and information on recommender systems 2 as well as to mitigate risks to civic discourse and protect the informational space online. Under the DSA, online platforms need to provide more transparency about the recommender systems they employ. Very large online platforms (VLOPs) and search engines (VLOSEs) must provide an option for each of their recommender systems that is not based on profiling, and they must analyse and mitigate risks stemming from their service, including on the design and functioning of recommender and algorithmic systems. The DSA is showing concrete results in this respect, with VLOPs taking measures to comply with the law such as the introduction of an opt-out of the recommender systems based on profiling, which means that recommender systems now must also be available without profiling users. The Commission systematically scrutinises the algorithmic systems of VLOPs and VLOSEs. The Commission has sent several requests of information 3 and opened ten formal proceedings 4 regarding for example recommender systems, notably the risks linked to the coordinated inauthentic manipulation or automated exploitation of the service or political advertisements. Moreover, the Code of Practice on Disinformation 5 , which is in the process of being converted into a DSA Code of Conduct includes several commitments that deal with manipulative practices, algorithms and recommender systems 6 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (Text with EEA relevance). 2 As outlined in the DSA articles 27 and 28. 3 Requests for Information: YouTube (02 October 2024 and 09 November 2023), Snapchat (02 October 2024), TikTok (02 October 2024, 09 November 2023, 19 February 2024, 29 November 2024, 17 December 2024), Meta (10 November 2023 and 01 December 2023), X (12 October 2023). Please find more information on the Commission’s Supervision of the designated very large online platforms and search engines under the DSA here: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-and-vloses#ecl-inpage-metaplatforms 4 Opening of proceedings: AliExpress (30 April 2024), Facebook (16 May 2024, 30 April 2024), Instagram (16 May 2024, 30 April 2024), TikTok (19 February 2024, 22 April 2024, 17 December 2024),X (18 December 2023) and Temu (31 October 2024). Please find more information on the Commission’s Supervision of the designated very large online platforms and search engines under the DSA here: https://digitalstrategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-and-vloses#ecl-inpage-metaplatforms 5 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-disinformation 6 These include recommendations on combatting coordinated inauthentic behaviour, influence operations and foreign interference and recommender systems, as outlined in Commitments 14, 15, 16, and 18 of The Code of Practice on Disinformation.”
  Recommender systems · Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2024-12-05 “E-002794/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen On behalf of the European Commission Democracy is a core value of the EU with free and fair elections at its heart. Member States are responsible for organising elections according to national constitutional rules, legislation, international obligations, and EU law. The Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 contains regulatory means for scrutinising the risks around the design, functioning, or the use made of very large online platforms and search engines, including the dissemination of illegal content, or to any negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes. In the context of the Romanian Presidential elections, following the analysis of TikTok’s risk assessment reports, TikTok’s replies to the Commission’s requests for information 2 , as well as third-party reports and internal Commission testing and evidence collection, the Commission opened a third set of proceedings against TikTok 3 based on suspected infringements of the DSA concerning systemic risks to civic discourse and electoral processes. Additionally, the Commission issued a ‘retention order' to TikTok 4 , ordering to freeze and preserve data related to actual or foreseeable systemic risks its service could pose on electoral processes and civic discourse in the EU. In these proceedings, the Commission will investigate TikTok’s compliance with DSA obligations on the assessment and mitigation of systemic risks 5 related to civic discourse and electoral processes stemming from the intentional manipulation of TikTok’s services, including its recommender systems, and the dissemination of political advertisements and paid-for political content, despite prohibition of such advertisements and content in TikTok’s terms and conditions. 1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (Text with EEA relevance) PE/30/2022/REV/1. OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1–102. 2 The Commission sent requests for information on 2 October, 29 November and 5 December 2024 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-and-vloses 3 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-opens-formal-proceedings-against-tiktok-electionrisks-under-digital-services-act 4 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-online-platforms-and-civil-society-increasemonitoring-during-romanian-elections 5 DSA Articles 34 and 35.”
  Recommender systems · Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2024-11-21 “P-002623/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen On behalf of the European Commission The Commission has been investigating X, designated as a Very Large Online Platform under the Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 , for suspected breaches of different articles, including suspected lack of compliance with, amongst others, Article 34(1) and (2) and 35(1) of the DSA. These provisions oblige providers of designated platforms inter alia to diligently identify, analyse and assess various systemic risks, and put in place effective mitigation measures. The current investigations against X include risks linked to civic discourse and elections in the EU, including risks stemming from the design and functioning of its algorithmic systems. On 17 January 2025, the Commission ordered X to retain internal documents and information regarding future changes to the design and functioning of its recommender algorithms, while also requesting internal documentation on its recommender system relating to past changes. The Commission also ordered access to certain technical interfaces (APIs) to allow direct fact-finding on content moderation and virality of accounts. These measures will allow the Commission services to take all relevant facts into account in the assessment under the DSA of systemic risks and their mitigation. 1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1–102.”
  Recommender systems · Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Yeah. Thank you very much. Good luck. Also, from my side, I have three questions. In the past weeks, we have seen this horrible phenomenon of millions of women being unified and exposed on X by grok. Also minus. But the minus point has already been touched. I would like to focus on the women. And now the commission has opened an investigation yesterday, finally. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. I mean, there's still hundreds of new apps out there that are being used on different platforms and which are not exactly clearly regulated. Would you support and push the council if the Parliament asks for it for a ban of such new apps, or under the AI act as prohibited practices, or in a another separate piece of legislation? First question. The second concerns the enforcement of the DSA. And thank you for for touching on that quite exhaustively. And yesterday we saw this investigation focusing on article 34 and 35. So the gender so the the systemic risk that one was systemic risk for gender based violence. But that article also mentions, um, systemic risk for public opinion, public discourse and electoral processes. And what we are witnessing right now is algorithms controlling political speech, amplifying extremist parties and reducing the visibility and therefore the freedom of speech of democratic parties, um, and the US and the national security strategy is set out basically to changing our policies and changing the parties that are in government. So do you want to bring that up as a topic and council to discuss how we can defend ourselves against this form of foreign interference, also through Russian disinformation and through algorithmic management? And the third quick question if I still have time on digital sovereignty, you also touched on that, and thank you for that. And also the S&D Sad colleague. The file that really concerns Imco is the public procurement. Do you support European preference, especially in critical and digital areas, and will you work with council in that direction? Thank you very much.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “They fall under this provision. So we could just simply write a letter to the Commission and ask them to ask Apple open an investigation against Apple and Google app stores, and not to have new fire apps that you can freely download. Very easy to do. The second one, the directive to combat violence against women, the domestic violence that has mentioned, has been mentioned by a few colleagues. It does make intimate pictures sharing a crime. That is true. So it's going to be a crime in 2020. 27 member states have to transpose it by 2027. But in trilogue, the council added there needs to be serious harm and you know, every person in the room knows the definition of serious harm is having an intimate picture of their on the internet. But the May justice minister saw that differently. So we need to make sure in our member States that when this law is transposed international law, the serious harm is gone. Or that, I mean, the perpetrator has to prove there has not been serious harm, and we have to ask the commission to come up with guidelines that make sure that the publication of those pictures is serious harm by itself, and that cannot be a burden on the victims. Also, as long as serious harm has to be proven, the platforms can say this is not a legal content and that stays up until you get a court decision and you know yourself what that means.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Thank you. Thank you. Chair. I start with a question to to Mrs. Melford. First of all, thanks. Thank you so much for this very precise description of what happens in the internet. And you mentioned that we are not targeting engagement based algorithms, which are one of the, I think, the 2 or 3 big root causes of all the issues that we are dealing with. And you said we don't have targeted rules. That is true. But we do have article 34 of the Digital Services Act on systemic risk. So if we think that disinformation being spread systematically to more people than information is a systemic risk for public discourse, that would give us the possibility to target engagement based algorithms, obviously, on the basis of a thorough investigation. That would prove that. And I think that is possible for the European Commission to do, especially with the access to data that it has and with the with a delegated act on access to data for researchers that.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “I'm sorry. All right, I'll look this way. So is this an avenue you would advise this committee to take and to recommend, and the to the commission and the final report to tackle engagement based algorithms this way using article 34. And then my second point goes to to you as Mrs. Mulford and also Mr. Schenck. Um, I think this issue of speech profitability is very interesting because if enraging speech is more profitable, um, that means also that people see it more. And since people have a limited attention span, that means that not enraging speech is suppressed. Do you think this is a form of censorship of people who engage in non angry, enraging Beijing speech. And to Mr. Cheng, thank you a lot for thanks a lot for for explaining community notes. So well, I have an additional question. Um, on certain platforms like sex harassment campaigns and hate speech are used to specifically drive specific groups of people out of the public discourse, out of those platforms, in particular women, the very few women left on women, minorities, um, and disinformation researchers who would be very interested to have uh, on those platforms. So is that also leading to having a very skewed picture of what community nodes come up with, the fact that not the whole representation is represented on that platform, because specific harassment campaigns are run against particular groups. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, colleagues, the attack on European democracy is well underway. And that's why we need to think big when it comes to the Democracy Shield. The commission can't be bullied by Trump and tech bros. We're seeing lies spread in Europe and in the United States. Trump is forcing universities to silence The Commission needs to act now. We need to be brave and change these algorithms that we're seeing online. Users need to see what they actually have searched for, what they want to see. We can't have this Musk Zuckerberg dictatorship spreading hate. New. We need opportunities in Europe, and we need to ensure that all voices can be heard, because that's true democracy. And one more thing. Currently, the biggest attack on press freedom in Europe is the Google monopoly on online advertising. No business can stand up against that. This is a violation of our rules, and therefore the procedure that Commissioner Ribera launched against Google. The best way of defending the free media and democracy. Thank you very much.”
  Digital advertising
• “President. Commissioner. Colleagues. The destruction of the European Union has been Putin's goal for years. And now, with the national security strategy, Trump has joined the club and their goals are clear. A weak and divided European continent, a polarized society and far right parties in power. And I am looking at every group in this house except the far right corner where the Putin's friend sits. And I'm looking at the European Commission. Putin, Trump and Musk have declared war against you. They want you out. They want everybody out who fights for democracy. And they have a powerful weapon and they're using it. Social media Elon Musk systematically down ranks. That means censors speech of pro-European political parties violating our freedom of expression. In turn, he boosts pro-Putin parties that want to destroy the European Union. And the evidence from Germany, Poland and UK is overwhelming. And we want the European Commission to investigate this. And X is not the only one. Tiktok force feeds far right content to people who do not choose that what we tolerate one party getting 80% of the TV space in a democracy? No, we would not. Then why do we accept that social media oligarchs impose this on our citizens in the online world? Why do we accept that the whole business model of social media is hate? Commissioner McGrath, you just said peace comes from respecting people, not from dividing them. So why do we accept the business model of an information online ecosystem that is built on dividing people, that is built on spreading hate? Colleagues, Commissioner, my constituents are deeply concerned about these attacks on our democracy. They are asking Europe to fight. But the person who could do that today is not even in the room. Executive Vice President Yakunin has something more urgent to do than to listen to the concerns of citizens and parliament. And I hope she's not meeting a big tech company. Tyranny requires our fear and our silence. Democracy requires courage, and it requires us to speak up. And I'm speaking up. I will not be silent. And I'm asking the European Commission to stand up for Europe.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Then I have a couple of questions on the gender based violence part. I think we are all agree on the fact that the material is serious, serious crime, and that we should have acted a lot quicker. And that's a question about your cooperation with DG, just because one thing that never came up in this context was the fact of the fact that we have a directive to combat violence against women that also very clearly says, I think it's article five A on the top of my head that non-consensual images, Intimate images are to be made a crime by member states, and I think member states have to transpose that by 2027. So I'm wondering, um, unless there's serious harm. But, you know, every woman in the room and outside of this room can say this is the exact definition of serious harm. So are you working with DG just on guidelines to make sure that the member states really make this a crime, whatever happens, unless there is explicit consent. So what is happening in that domain and are you taking that into account for the investigation? And the second question, um, there's a number of MEPs and two are in the room looking at that, thinking about a ban of new DeFi apps. So, um, I think it's important that the commission there helps a little bit, identifying the legal loopholes where we address it in the DSA, where we address it in the DMA, where we address it in the AI act to see how this can be done, because this is really a strong request coming from the public, from civil society right now. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Yes. Thank you very much, chair, and thanks a lot to the speakers for for the insightful presentations. Our first question on quantum. Could you give us a little bit of a timeline of what kind of actual products we could expect when more or less. Then you mentioned quantum chips. Um, what we need to do to produce them in Europe or to become even exporters rather than than importers. And you mentioned another important factor, and that is capital. So what would you suggest? Um, well, how could we help as a legislator to make sure that capital is invested in European digital sovereignty? And that is also in quantum technology that rather than flowing to other parts of the world, in particular the the US. And where do we stand vis a vis the US and China on quantum? Because I think in the last term it was often presented to us to a technology where Europe was very much advanced. And now there are huge investments being made also in other parts of the world. So do we need to step up or are we? Are we on a good path here on cloud? Well, thanks for for adding another company to the very interesting cloud company and provider landscape.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Why? Why are the double standards for different kinds of organizations? If we need less red tape and more simplification, why don't we need this for everybody? Third point I do share the council concerns that member states who already have strong transparency registers like my own, for example, would be definitely undermined. Transparency would be decreased. I do appreciate the rapporteur's effort to allow member states to have stronger standards to keep them, but that would simply lead to race to the bottom, where those organisations who have bad intentions, who do want to hide the fact that they are representing third countries interest, would just simply register in those member states which would have lower standards. And my last point of criticism is I'm running out of time. There is no real measure in this US draft against the real interest representation, and especially the unfair and unlawful one. Foreign disinformation campaigns, algorithms favoring disinformation over information micro-targeting that allows particularly vulnerable groups to be addressed by it. The whole advertising and money laundering issue behind behind the advertising and targeted disinformation that manipulates AI chatbots. Those are the really powerful mechanisms how in this age, in the digital age, foreign countries who do want to destroy our democracy or influence our political positions really do this, and none of the real problems are addressed. It's just more red tape for civil society organizations attacking ambition, national transparency registers, and there will be a massive, stigmatizing and chilling effect on CSOs who can't comply with all this red tape. So in the end, we'll end up having less transparency rather than more. Thank you very much.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Um, thank you very much. Chair. Um, I would like to ask, how do you see the shift in policy in the US on cryptocurrencies coming in there? We see that the current US administration is very much favoring cryptocurrencies. No regulation at all. Total liberalization. Very strong influence by by people advocating for total freedom of cryptocurrencies like David Sachs in the US administration and people in leading roles. Um, also threatening a little bit to bring down financial stability, um, and cryptocurrencies. We know this is the way you pay for these services in, in the darknet. And there's also a strong impact of corruption because now the president can be paid in cryptocurrencies and nobody can trace anything. So how much do you see um, political influence and corruption in the document and what impact is this. Um, this total freedom for cryptocurrencies will have an increasing impact. Uh, what impact is that going to have? Thank you.”
  Regulation of crypto
• “Thank you very much, chair. And my first question goes to, uh, Colonel Fulton. Um, I very much agree. When you said our main vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities in our brains or in our hearts and minds. And you said we need to regulate the negative impact of social media. If you want to defend, if you want to defend our countries. And the good thing is, we already have regulation with which we could do that specifically. That's the Digital Services Act, article 34 and 35. But today the European Commission chooses not to apply is because of the pressure coming from the Trump government. And one of the explanations is, um, that this could lead the Trump government to stop supporting Ukraine If we use the digital regulation that we have for the algorithms. So in your professional opinion, do you think we should still do it? And do you think that the 28 points plan also is a sign that Trump is, is not supporting Western values or democracy and freedom in Europe anymore? And so it's even more important to defend the information space, and that is social media. Um, then I have a second question to whoever wants to reply. Um, in my country, Germany, far right parties are very systematically using parliamentary information systems to like, like written questions to local to regional or national governments to get information on where critical infrastructure is exactly deployed and how it is defended.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Um, I would like to ask the question about prominence and visibility that were mentioned for media content. I'm hearing this a lot, especially from public media, also from my country. But the real problem we have here is that we have algorithms on social networks that systematically create higher visibility for disinformation, misinformation and malinformation than for fact based information. Um, also, it is a lot easier to create AI generated content or just to put a rumor or a lie out there, rather than to produce fact based, evidence based information, which requires a lot of journalistic research and work. So there is a systematic disadvantage for information. And why do you only focus on visibility and prominence for especially public media or, um, certain, um, chosen kind of media outlets rather than insisting, like joining the battle with everybody else who wants fact based information in the focus and asking the commission to work on the algorithms under article 34 and make sure that users choices count, and not the choices of the networks of the social platforms who give more visibility to disinformation. So shouldn't that be a joint battle to change the whole environment, the whole incentive system? Um, that's my my main question. Since everybody took two minutes, I will just take a few seconds. One thing I have not heard mentioning is the advertising market. I mean, one of the reasons that media outlets are so much under pressure is the fact that advertising revenue is not does go to Google right now, which has a monopoly. This was established by a US court. Shouldn't we focus a little bit on rebalancing the advertising markets, having more competition there. Because right now it's the same two players, Google and Meta, who control, who gets to see the content, who dictate their opinion on who gets to see which content, and to control the whole revenue system and the advertising system. I think this is where we should focus more. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms · Digital advertising
• “Mr. president, commissioner, dear colleagues. In the 1970s, near Montreal, there was an area where the employment rate for women grew particularly quickly. Now this was analyzed and it was found that women had got jobs in the inner city. So this transport projects can have a significant impact and different impacts for women and men. We need to be able to understand these impacts, and we need to have build this into our budgetary policies. So for the MMF, we require a better. Analytical tools to look at the gendered impact of these policies. This is good for women, women and men. Men have longer life expectancy when there is more equal societies. And this should be our joint seal. Now, what was shocking is that the EPP, after long negotiations a few days before the vote, sir. Moved away from the von der Leyen majority and moved to a far right to a majority against gender equality in the budget. So my thought goes out to all members of this committee who have not are not in line with this, um, anti female decisions. And this needs to be more than just lip service.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thanks to the rapporteur for presenting her ideas. Um, the Greens very much share the objective of creating more transparency on interest representation carried out on behalf of third countries. But we do not think that this draft is really achieving that goal. Definitely. So the definitions are totally unclear, but, um, the way the scope is worded right now, it would disproportionately target civil society organizations. The rapporteur has explained why EPP does not want to broaden the scope, but the Commission and the impact assessment says whether specifically single out specific entities, 700 to 1000 entities, and that will inevitably lead to a stigmatization of civil society organisations. I think it's quite interesting that the Commission and and the EPP want, especially those organisations, to be transparent. And there we agree, but not economic companies, for example. And it's also very interesting that EP, and that is not the fault of the rapper, but I just want to point out the contradiction and voted last week against the parliament joining the ethics body, which is something that was already decided. And in the Afco committee, um, EP decided with the far right majority to keep the Parliament from joining against the will of this House. So do we want transparency for everybody, including political parties, including ourselves? And let's not forget that this draft, this idea is a response to the Qatar gate scandal. So do we exactly want to take the Parliament out? I know this is not the object of this, of this draft of this bill specifically, but there is a connection. So I think we need transparency for everybody. This is what we would be willing to work on, but not on this draft. A second point which has already been made, um, EP and other parties fight for simplification in this mandate for everybody except civil society organizations, they have to face more red tape.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Well, thank you very much. Chair. Um, I would like to to respond to what the representative said. And you said the first reason for stopping political advertising in Europe is that we prevent advertisers from reaching their intended audiences. I would just like to give an example of what that exactly means. Um, in the US, the last presidential campaign, uh, an Elon Musk funded PAC, um, financed ads targeted at Muslim voters, which pretended to be the Harris campaign. They're funded by Elon Musk. And they pretended to be the Kamala Harris campaign directed at Muslim voters, outlining and highlighting Kamala Harris's ties to the Jewish community and their support for Israel and her Jewish husband. At the same time, this pack paid for ads pretending to be the Kamala Harris campaign directed at Jewish voters, insinuating her support for Palestine, Gaza and maybe even Hamas. This is pitting religious communities against each other. This is what the matter representative is trying to say when he says we are preventing people, politicians, from reaching their intended audiences. I really wonder. I mean, there has been a complex investigation that shows Facebook's role in the Rohingya genocide because you allowed one religious community to be pitted against another, and that resulted in a genocide.”
  Digital advertising
• “Put her on her back. Spread her legs. Put semen on her stomach. These words are not fit to be pronounced in this chamber. But these words are ruining the lives of women and children. Because Elon Musk built a tool that encourages men to do this on X. Where is the investigation to condemn this abominable and illegal behavior. Yesterday, the German press reported that the cabinet of the Commission President stopped the Department of the Commission who had prepared that investigation. That was ready to go. Shame on you, Madam President. And it's getting worse. This morning the news broke of more cases of AI generated child abuse images generated by grog and still online doing nothing. You are aiding and abetting child abuse. This is a really dark moment. Fortunately, my heroes are here with us today. Josephine Bohlen and Ana Elena von Hardenberg from the German organization Aid are watching us today from the visitor's gallery. They defend the victims of deep fake news and hateful speech. They are not afraid to speak out. They are not afraid to stand, afraid to stand up to the bullies. And that is why they were sanctioned by President Trump. May the commission president inspired by your courage.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “I'm also very much aware of the fact that, um, the directive to combat violence against women that was passed in 2024, it needs to be transposed by the member states by 2027, I don't know. I know it's not directly, uh, your area of competence, but if you had a date, it would be very helpful. But I know that's that's not your job. Um, um, that has an article that says the sharing of intimate images has to be made a crime by member states. But there is a limitation that says only if there's serious harm. And while every woman in the room can agree that having an intimate image of you out there on social media against your will is the very definition of serious harm. At the time, the ministers and council didn't see it the same way. So do you think transposing that legislation in the member States is enough to achieve also a ban of the material? Or, um, do we need to do this here? Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “71% of Americans feel that the pace of AI development is moving too fast. Two thirds of Americans want the government to regulate the dangers of AI. 7 in 10 Americans oppose constructing data centers. Maybe this is why the AI companies and the current US administration are so keen on imposing their AI and their lack of safety on Europe, because in the US the people have turned against them. In Europe, we should be building better AI. Ai that serves the many and not the few. And the tech sovereignty package would have been an important first step to do that. But once again, the US ambassador resorts to blackmail. You either work with us or you don't. That sounds like a line from a bad gangster film to me. Not like a conversation with a trade partner. But once again, the European Commission kowtows postponing the sovereignty package. You don't build sovereignty by kissing the wing. The only way to break free is to stand up for yourself. When will this European Commission finally stand up for Europe?”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Thank you, chair and Executive Vice President. Great to see you and congrats for the decision the commission took last week on the Dmaa case. I'm very happy to see that. I think the fines are still low, but I acknowledge this is the beginning and we welcome it very much, especially that we clearly say this is this is about rule of law. You know, this is nothing to do with terrorists. It's not something we slap on the companies. This is the way we do business in Europe. These are our rules and reinforce them. I have another question on the online ad market, because you know that ten days ago, a US court stated that Google illegally dominates two markets for online advertising technology. Um, the court found that Google is liable for willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in markets for publishers, ads, publisher, ad service, and the market for ad exchanges, which sit between buyers and sellers. And online advertising is particularly crucial because this is what used to fund our publishers, our free press, before Google and to a minor extent, Facebook monopolized that market. So fixing that market is the most important measure we can take to support our free press, which is something we discussed quite a lot in the special Committee for the Democracy Shield. And your predecessor, Vestager already started an investigation also in the online advertising market. So my question is also looking at the decision of the American court. What is the EU Commission doing to break up that market and to create a fair level playing field that would benefit European publishers, advertisers, citizens, consumers, and also maybe alternative tech platforms that in this way would have a way to prosper. Thank you very much.”
  Digital advertising
• “Yeah, I would love to support that proposal. That is also an idea I had because, I mean, this this dossier that has been made by the Judiciary Committee of the House with a lot of lies is actually threatening the officials of the EU Commission working in the enforcement. I think that is very dangerous. Just to sum up the far right speakers there's no censorship by European institutions. There's a lot of censorship by the platforms, 99% of content moderation decisions. So where content is taken down are taken by the platforms, only 1% is taken on the basis of legal provisions in the member states or in the EU. And only in the first half of 2025, 52% of those content decisions were reversed on the basis of the DSA, so that people get their freedom of speech online against the platforms. This is thanks to the DSA. And why is the Trump administration so obsessed with the DSA? Because it takes power away from the platforms to control our opinion, to control through algorithms whose opinions are visible and who is not. And we have a lot of evidence that democratic parties are classic media content are suppressed, while extremist parties and movement hate and violence are boosted by the platforms. So this is part of an authoritarian attack against democracy. And this is why it concerns all of us and not only the sanctioned individuals. At this point, I wonder what is the EU Commission? What are member States doing to protect these individuals who are part of that enforcement chain, who we really need to protect safety in Europe? Why is the Commission president not inviting them? For example, in a formal reception to to pay her tributes? What are we doing to defend them? Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Yeah, I would love to support that proposal. That is also an idea I had because, I mean, this this dossier that has been made by the Judiciary Committee of the House with a lot of lies, is actually threatening the officials of the EU Commission working in the enforcement. I think that is very dangerous. Just to sum up the far right speakers there's no censorship by European institutions. There's a lot of censorship by the platforms, 99% of content moderation decisions. So where content is taken down are taken by the platforms, only 1% is taken on the basis of legal provisions in the member states or in the EU. And only in the first half of 2025, 52% of those content decisions were reversed on the basis of the DSA, so that people get their freedom of speech online against the platforms. This is thanks to the DSA. And why is the Trump administration so obsessed with the DSA? Because it takes power away from the platforms to control our opinion, to control through algorithms whose opinions are visible and who is not. And we have a lot of evidence that democratic parties are classic media content are suppressed, while extremist parties and movement hate and violence are boosted by the platforms. So this is part of an authoritarian attack against democracy, and this is why it concerns all of us and not only the sanctioned individuals. At this point, I wonder what is the EU Commission? What are member States doing to protect these individuals who are part of that enforcement chain, who we really need to protect safety in Europe? Why is the Commission president not inviting them? For example, in a formal reception to to pay her tributes? What are we doing to defend them? Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you, rapporteur. Sometimes when I listen to this discussion, I feel we are discussing a completely different text and it is the first time today that I hear it is directed at consulting and communication firms. If that is the new limitation of the scope, I think we can find wording around that. That would be a very easy agreement, but this is not what the text is saying. So there are massive problems. First of all, as I pointed out, there is a massive risk of stigmatising civil society organisations as foreign agents. I do believe there are countries in Europe who could apply this directive Effective correctly. I do also believe there are a lot of countries who will not do that. And I remind everybody that right now, for example, the Hungarian government is threatening the Budapest mayor with criminal sanctions for organizing the Budapest PRI as a municipal event. What do you think is going to happen? Those are civil society organizations. I also heard yesterday in the Democracy Shield Committee from the Patriots, which you are relying on for a majority together with renew that they are clearly mentioning organizations funded by Open Society Foundation and Rothschild Foundation. I let you draw the conclusions and the scope is still totally unclear. We could not get an answer, neither from the rapporteur nor from the Commission, whether cases like, for example, Orban's MCH Foundation would be included, Who is doing heavy lobbying work here in Brussels and who is funded by the Hungarian state Um organization for Gas and Oil, which has an exemption for selling Russian gas and oil. Would that represent Russian interest or not? I think that's an interesting case.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Yes, thank you very much, chair. Just to make the point that most NGOs are expression of what citizens want, what citizens engage in, and not what Russian or foreign influences want or actors want. My question. I have two questions to to Mrs. Ridloff. The first one, you mentioned alternative financial systems. I think you mean cryptocurrencies with that mean coins and so on, but maybe also something else. So what can we do based on the legislation that we already have like AML. And Mica you mentioned Mica implementation. What are the concrete practical actions that we should recommend to the Commission in our report? And a second question. One of the big political anti-democratic actors is the Hungarian MK Foundation, who is financed by the Hungarian government with the share in the Hungarian oil and gas company or energy company mol. It's a 10% share. This company makes its money, makes it profits. Um, selling Russian oil and gas, which for every other country in the European Union, I think, except Slovakia is sanctioned. So would that be considered Russian foreign interference? Interference? And what should we do about it? Thank you.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Just very briefly, I think that was a very important point my colleague made on interoperability, which now would be an extremely important feature to have in order to allow people to you to leave this, this universe and to come to freer and open networks. So I remember when we negotiated the DMA, that was a strong demand by the Parliament. It was killed by council at the very late hours of the DMA trilogue negotiations. Is that maybe something that the Commission would consider bringing within the omnibus on a different way, because the very clear need now for interoperability to give people back their choices. Is that something you would consider suggesting? Um, my question goes to Mr. Belgian. Uh, what? You presented this idea for a European platform that really would give European companies the possibility to build on that platform, to build, um, free and open social networks and citizens to choose. What do you need from the European Parliament to support you? I remember you need big initial investments. Um, is there anything we could do for you? We know that the American platforms are heavily funded through public contracts and other ways by their government. Is there anything we could do? And could you explain what you could do for the press? We know that free media are extremely under pressure right now due to the artificial intelligence instruments that simply steal their content and basically present it to people and, um, and that that is, uh, heavily reducing free media's revenue. And this is causing a really fundamental systemic crisis. Is there anything you could do to save the free press with this platform? Thank you.”
  Interoperability requirements for digital platforms
• “My first question goes to Mrs. Havlicek. Currently, the European Commission Commission's ideas for the Democracy Shield are focusing a lot on fact checking, media literacy and election protection. So it's basically focusing on changing people's behavior, Citizens behaviors rather than the platform's behavior. But from your remarks, we understand that it's rather the platform's behavior that is causing the rise of disinformation and radicalization that is threatening our democracy. So the algorithms, the recommender systems that systematically push that content to users, rather than creating a level playing field for all kinds of content. So do you think we should recommend the commission to focus rather on algorithms and recommender systems in the Democracy Shield? And in particular, I think the Commission should use article 34 to investigate the platforms mechanisms that lead to disproportionate reach of measurable disinformation. So that is information that is false and where there is a clear intention. If those mechanisms can then be established, it could introduce mitigating measures under article 35 that we create a level playing field for facts that establish more users choice and more algorithmic pluralism, while at the same time protecting lawful content from deletion. So do you think this would be an interesting measure to recommend under the DSA? And a quick second question to both. You mentioned that if users on telegram stoke or Messages content stokes anger and fear, um, the visibility increases by 30 or 40%. And we know that more or less this is true for all platforms. You mostly stoke anger, hate and fear. The higher is your visibility. If you don't do that, that means your content is suppressed because you get less visibility. The platforms make a clear choice to give those people more visibility than to those who work with maybe more optimistic views, nicer images, and who don't stoke hate and fear. Don't you think this is also an attack on freedom of speech? Because that means there is a systemic suppression of democratic parties. And this is exactly what the study on X in the German election showed. Thank you.”
  Recommender systems
• “Yes. Thank you very much. I have a few questions for Professor Jacqueline, sir. So you spoke about more transparency and access for data under the directive and maybe Mika. So what do you think we could learn from that access? And then a second question, more on enforcement. I mean, what kind how difficult is it to trace financial flows and what kind of resources do we need to do that? Because in the past, I believe we used to rely heavily on us and for us enforcement agencies. And we hear from your intervention, we shouldn't do that anymore. So what are the alternatives? How can we really manage to get thorough enforcement? Speaking about the capacities needed to do that, and you mentioned it's a hybrid war. What is the role of the military here? What could they contribute? Should they contribute? We know in Europe we are trying to prepare to be ready in case of of a further Russian aggression. Um, so should that be a topic we also, uh, bring up in defence debates? Thank you.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Thank you very much, chair and Madam Rapporteur, first of all, thanks. Thanks a lot for the draft report. Our group approaches the European Competitors fund in a very constructive spirit because we believe it can really give an important contribution in rebuilding a competitive economy in Europe. And we see this as a chance. I think we also need other instruments because as the public consultation by the Commission shows, one of the reasons we have a lack of innovation and competitiveness is the widespread underinvestment. And that is particularly true for the digital window and for digital sovereignty. So, um, first of all, we would focus on the sovereignty aspect. We know that there's a number of choke points where our companies are highly and our whole economy is highly dependent on foreign controlled infrastructures, just to mention the cloud market, for example, enterprise software, social networks, marketplaces that we all have, gatekeepers that all our companies depend on, that are not in our hands, and therefore the ECF must explicitly strengthen European tax sovereignty across the entire digital ecosystem. That is not only physical infrastructure, it's also services. It's platforms of all kinds, and obviously it's software and application and artificial intelligence. Um, secondly, we clearly have to prioritize investment in European owned and European governed digital capacities across the value chain and make also sure that if we invest European taxpayers money in start ups and scale ups, they have the possibility to find all the capital to need in Europe and cannot just exit to the US taking that money away. Um, secondly, competitiveness must deepen and not fragment the single market, but a competitive Europe is one that cuts.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Yes. Thank you very much. And thank you very much for the investigation that the commission opened yesterday against Grock and X very belated, but still important that it's finally coming. The fact is that that is just the tip of the iceberg, what you can regulate with the DSA, because it's just what is on a social media platform and generated directly by the platform. So there's a huge loophole. There are I don't know how many hundreds of new apps out there. There are probably thousands of telegram groups, with hundreds of thousands of men exchanging tips and tricks on how to humiliate women with those apps. This is a major industry, and we have no idea how huge the number of victims is, and that's mainly young women and girls, but also other women. So my question is, could you? How would you advise the Parliament if we were in favour of a ban? Because when I listened to the Imco colleagues yesterday, I had the feeling many colleagues from different Democratic groups were horrified. Um, can we achieve that under the AI act, under the omnibus? If we introduce a ban there? Or would there be further loopholes? And it is better to go for a piece of of standalone legislation.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Yes, thank you very much, chair. And thank you for your interesting presentation. I think monetization is really half of the problem because it creates a disinformation industry. I'm here. Um, it creates a disinformation industry because it rewards those content creators that focus on disinformation and propaganda. Outrage, anger, hate and violence. Everything that creates outrage and anger in people or fear in people, and the actual underlying root is the way that content is ranked, and that is engagement based ranking. Because people for our psychological make up, we tend to engage with with content that elicits fear, anger, and outrage. So automatically, as long as engagement based ranking is used as a basic ranking method, that kind of content will get rewarded with visibility and it will be rewarded with monetization. So it's very, very easy to make a very comfortable living just setting up a website and circulating disinformation, propaganda and violent and hateful material. This is well documented. It's a lot easier to do that on the in the anti-democratic, far right spectrum. It's a lot easier to do that with Russian propaganda than with any kind of quality content. And this is one of the causes why traditional media that adheres to journalistic standards standards is increasingly defunded, because in that kind of ranking, there is no way they can compete with with influencers, propaganda peddlers and so on.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you very much. I'm replacing my dear colleague, Alexandra Gaiser, who cannot be here today. As you know, she's working on digital issues and not AI. Um, Europe has a strong digital industry that wants to deliver for European sovereignty. And it's time to keep our data safe from foreign governments, to scale up homegrown innovation and to build our own digital platforms. In the European Parliament, we can push the European Commission to create the conditions for our industry to thrive. Public procurement and regulatory clarity are the main drivers. Our public administrations need to drive the demand because that's what our companies and startups need, and it's exactly what ensured growth of the digital industry and other geographies like in the US or in China. Also, the upcoming cloud and AI development will play a decisive role. We urgently need a definition for real digital sovereignty that makes sure European data stays safe under European jurisdiction and creates added value in Europe for European citizens. We have to keep in mind that a very relevant component for the business model data center is the energy price. Therefore, we need to address energy and water efficiency also in data center design. This means efficient cooling as well as the use of waste heat by developing and supporting the respective technology. We can give the EU a technological advantage on the global market, as energy demand will inevitably also become relevant for regions where energy prices are lower just by sheer growth of the sector. Let's work together to scale up safe and energy efficient clouds I made in Europe and real public infrastructure. Let's make Europe the best place for global talent.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Yes, thank you very much, chair. We also believe that technological sovereignty is really key for our political sovereignty. We live in times where 80% of our digital services and products come from foreign companies, and this gives them the possibility to manipulate our democracy because they control the platforms we communicate on. But it is also a serious threat for the competitiveness of European companies. As some companies are saying, what companies care about is business continuity. And today the interruption of your business continuity is just one An executive order away. So this is not about protectionism. This is about creating equal chances and a level playing field. And executive Vice President Buchanan has been very clear in saying that who wants to do business in Europe needs to comply with European legislation. And unfortunately, the current US administration has already announced that their tech companies will not comply with all of our legislation and has announced retaliation. So what we care about and where we will particularly put a focus on our Green amendments is, first of all, keep our data safe from foreign governments. We need to make sure that our data is not only localized in Europe, but that is also protected against the access of third countries and therefore falls under European legislation, which we decide here and not under third country legislation. We will put a focus on energy efficiency. The high energy costs in Europe have already been mentioned. So efficiency for us is even more important. We want to reach our climate goals and we want to focus on circular economy. In order to have enough raw materials, we do encourage digital public infrastructure.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Colleagues. Foreign influence aimed at destroying our democracy is a real risk that we have to stand up against. The commission could do an awful lot. There are so many relevant issues with botnets which decide from abroad what we can see on the internet here and what we can't. Algorithms as well, which are manipulated by that in transparent online markets. Hybrid warfare, corruption and the role of cryptocurrencies. All of that could have helped to do something about that would have helped protect democracy and avoid this in Europe. But apparently the commission and people didn't need this, didn't want this they wanted a transparency register for all of those people who are representing their interests in the EU, including exactly those foreign companies who are not wanting to apply our digital rules, but do all the rest. And that's why we've heard people talking about blackmail, but obviously the commission wanted that. With the conservative side of the House, there's a lot of legal uncertainty. And that limits the role for civil society as well. I think we need to clarify. We need to look at the definitions which could avoid the worst, but we're nonetheless worried that this law will not affect foreign intervention in and influence, but will really damage the civil society in Europe when we really need them for our.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Good morning. Commissioner. Good to see you here. I'm here. Good morning. I would like to have the first question about the steel industry. And as we all know, the European steel industry is facing a very serious crisis that can only get worse in the absence of measures by the European Union. We already you already mentioned the geopolitical tensions and uncertainty that we all are facing in Europe. The whole world, but particularly steel industry. And a key factor for the competitiveness of that industry is the availability of our European industry, with available availability of green steel made in Europe. So what we really do not need is through the political uncertainty, which I am seeing in my own country, where the concept of green steel is being questioned by major parties. You said you spoke about the importance of having a true north. So will the European Commission guarantee the strong commitment to green steel made in Europe? And could you outline what the Commission is planning to back this up, specifically in terms in terms of lead markets for EU made green products, in particular in the upcoming Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act for the steel industry.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Another interesting case would be Mark Zuckerberg pledging in January to advance Trump's agenda to get rid of European digital legislation, for example. Is that foreign interest? What do you need to register or not? We did not get any answers, so the scope is totally unclear. Um, in this totally unclear scope on top, the rapporteur wants to introduce criminal sanctions. Um, this is something totally unprecedented in the European legislation and such an unclear case. How can you have criminal sanctions? You know, I talk a lot to a small organization in Germany, the grandmaster, against the far right. If they got a small donation from Switzerland, they cannot verify whether that's a government agent or something working for the government, or it's just another Swiss grandma. So nobody would risk doing that work anymore if there might be criminal sanctions. So there are two ways forward. And I'm. I welcome the postponement. So we have more time to discuss this and come up with a serious solution, or we clearly limit it, as you just suggested, if it's really directed to communication and consulting firms, we can limit it to that scope and find a wording around that or what we actually want, but which was called as not serious by by a colleague. I don't know why. It's a broader transparency register for all interest representatives, something we have in the European Parliament, something we have in Germany, for example. So we do not need an anti Soros law. We need real transparency and I hope we can come up with a new text over the summer. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Thank you. Thank you. Um, first of all, I would like to say that the platforms not only facilitate that kind of content, but they deliberately enhance it and reward it with visibility and with advertising revenue. This is a business model where men make make a lot of money on women's bodies. Secondly, there's no also a political intention. You know, if you look at what Elon Musk says about women, about Zuck, Mark Zuckerberg has about moderation policies allowing explicitly insults against women on his platform. This is what he said in January. And when you look at what the US government, who has jurisdiction for these platforms, ask them to do. You know, the biggest funder of the vice president of the US, JD Vance, is Peter Thiel. And Peter Thiel said America went downhill when women got the vote. So there's an economic business model thriving on this kind of violence, and there's a political intention to send women home and make them shut up. So please don't speak about platform's responsibility. This is the platform's intention. And then we do not need, I believe, new legislation at this moment. I'm very surprised that so few people know the legislation that we already have. One piece of legislation has been mentioned, and the job of this committee should be make sure that the three pieces of legislation we have are adequately implemented and enforced. So, first of all, Digital Services Act, article 34, systemic risk violence against women, the Apple and the Google App Store, where you can download these new fire apps, are a very large platform.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Thank you very much. I have a question to to Frances Hogan in 2021, when you came with a lot of information from Facebook, you put a very strong focus on engagement based ranking. And at the time you said when you have a system that you know can be hacked with anger, it's easier to provoke people into anger. And publishers are saying, oh, if I do more angry, polarising, divisive content, I get more money. This system is still in place, and this is what is also driving disinformation and misinformation, because people get angrier about the lies that are told, and the lies are used to make them angry in many ways. And this is therefore it is so difficult to compete for journalists, for publishers who have to report the facts, and the facts are sometimes better than they look, actually. So now with the DSA, with article 34, we have the chance to get rid of engagement based ranking. We could say this is, you know, if this is if it is established that it spreads disinformation more than information. Um, lying influencers content more than fact based media content that would be a systemic risk for public discourse. So do you think we should keep this focus on engagement based ranking and find a different way for algorithmic management that is a lot more based on users choice? Thank you.”
  Recommender systems
• “Thank you very much, chair. First of all, um, to to my colleague from the Patriots who was asking who is paying for the Greenpeace campaigns? I would recommend to check the Greenpeace website. Um, they are quite transparent about where their funding comes from. And comes 96% from individual citizens. I think it's very easy to retrieve this information. And my question goes primarily to Mrs. Gauthier. Um, you spoke a lot about the need to restore competition in the advertising market, which I think is very important and which this committee has not worked on yet. And I think we should work on this a little more. So I was wondering if you could elaborate a little more on the fact that, for example, Google has been found to be a monopolist in the US. There was there was a series of lawsuits and court cases. So what do you think the results from those court cases would mean for Europe? And could you elaborate a little bit more on the fact that Google represents the publishers and the advertisers who have adverse interests, and how we could regulate this in Europe in a way analogous to how what we would do in financial markets or other kinds of markets.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “And in the end of that chapter, Mark Zuckerberg came back to the states and thinks about running for president. That is how effective those in transparent practices are and how they intervene in our politics. So I think in Europe we have a right to basic transparency. I do understand concerns around the implementation. We also had doubts around the definitions, but the Commission made very clear it's not up for the platforms to define what is political advertising, but for the sponsors. And I think what you are afraid of is the transparency around your practices and how much the ads cost. Both Facebook whistleblowers say far right parties, extremist parties, extremist content costs a lot less than moderate and progressive content. Also, that transparency is something we would like to see. And seeing your company just refusing to even try to engage with us to comply with the law, that makes me think this House and all the European institutions should work very hard to promote European platforms and social networks that do not have doubts about the fact that our legislation is good and want to comply with it. And that is something this committee should be working on. Thank you.”
  Digital advertising
• “And this is maybe a core element. We strongly support requirements in terms of public procurement to procure mainly European products, because this is what our companies are asking for. We have highly qualified cloud companies. We have great startups. What they do need is European demand, and this is what our public administration should do. And we I think we all have seen the letter coming from the digital European industry asking us for exactly that. So the project called the euro stack, for example. This is what we can do with public procurement. We also support a European tech fund that is public money in order to leverage private investment. There are some areas where we need some public intervention to support alternative and public infrastructure. We support open standards and open source and that means everybody can cooperate. This is not to create a closed system. This is not about protectionism. This is, on the contrary, an effort to open the digital system, to work with other countries that every company can jump on this and produce services and products based on these open systems. And the last point that is very important to me, it's about talent attraction. We need to make sure we keep the talent. And we have so much talent in Europe and they want to stay us. They believe in our vision and they stay in Europe, and we need to facilitate mobility and stable employment for talent coming from third countries. That is very interested right now in coming to Europe. So we need to create good avenues for this. Thank you very much.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Thank you, chair, and thanks to the speaker for that. And very interesting presentation. And thank you also for focusing more on on the systemic and structural issues. I think that is very, very important. You know, as, as, as important it is to fight back when journalists are physically attacked. For example, as you said, I think the underlying big danger right now is really the lack of funding for the press, which puts all journalists and publishers under an incredible stress and makes it difficult. Um, you pointed out a very important point. Um, the incentive system, you said unreliable sites which don't have facts, which are not reliable, actually generate more revenue than reliable ones. And that creates an incentive system for producing disinformation. And I think this is one of the tasks of this committee to see what we can do against that. How can we recreate a level playing field for facts? So this is not about curtailing freedom of speech in any way. I know something is going to say that it's just about recreating a level playing field and seeing what can algorithmic mechanisms be. That offer at least the same possibility for facts, and for people who hold opinions that are based on facts to get at least the same visibility. Because I think that users make wise choices. Most of them, not all of them. That's freedom of speech. But I think having an incentive system that gives a fair chance to everybody is important for the whole news and journalistic system, but also important for everybody else.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Yes, thank you very much, chair. I have a mixture of my own comments and those of our our shadow. Um, who is more into it? Um, so first of all, the commission, thank you all for your ongoing work implementing the AI act. But as you know, we have a huge concern around the code of practice. It seems providers suddenly no longer have to account for risk to free speech, discrimination, nor the spread of illegal and radicalizing content or the spread of disinformation because it is now voluntary and secondary to the selected systemic risk mitigation obligations. And this is contrary to the core of the agreement between the Parliament and Member states, if providers of the most impactful general purpose AI models now adopt more extreme political positions, also implement policies that undermine model reliability and facilitate foreign interference or election manipulation, and contribute to discrimination, restrict the freedom of information, or disseminate illegal content. The consequences would deeply disrupt Europe's economy and democracy, and we cannot be naive in the current geopolitical context. Data poisoning, where false disinformation is fed into AI by way of foreign influence campaigns to influence our public debates is already happening. You have certainly heard about the Russian Pravda operation, where more than 3 million documents with false information about the aggression against Ukraine were fabricated just to feed them to AI chat bots. And it's working. It's absolutely working. So what we really need is more transparency on sources. And I also support what Brando Benifei said on the transparency in case that copyrighted sources are used for training. Um, moreover, it's not only compute, but also other factors, such as large reach, that can designate a model as a high impact model. So it's important to ensure it has also assessed and mitigated risks as already indicated. We trust you will ensure clear, concrete and strong code of practice that reflects these core principles of the AI act and protects our society against systemic risks to health, safety, fundamental rights and democracies. And we hope you will take responsibility to improve the code to better reflect the trilogue agreement. Thank you very much.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “There's an ongoing court case. And I think we need to mention this how to, to reestablish, um, a democratic and a market based system and not get away from that monopoly. Last but not least, there's one big elephant in the room. I do agree with the definition of Russia as a major threat. Um, but we also see the influence of the US in Europe. The US has been, um is considered by the major Democracy Research Institute, the Swedish Institute, which you are certainly familiar with. Mr. rapporteur, it's not a liberal democracy anymore. And this is shocking. And we know that the US, in their national security strategy, very clearly says they want to weaken the European Union. They want to bring certain parties to power and to support them actively, and they want to use their tech platforms, which control our infrastructure, in particular our information infrastructure, to achieve that goal. So I think this is something we need to address in that report and outline very clear measures on how do we want to make sure that Europe is a sovereign continent, and the European Union is made up by sovereign countries, and we will not tolerate foreign interference from anyone, not from Russia, but also not from the US. Thank you very much.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Yes, thank you very much, chair. Two quick questions on the Voice of Europe scandal. Could you comment on how member states, intelligence services and law enforcement cooperate on this? And my real question, following up on what my my colleague said, what can Europe do? It's very easy. Stop the algorithm, stop the recommender system, stop the bot networks that spread that kind of content, disinformation kind of content, Russian propaganda to so many more people than any kind of disinformation. There's a recent investigation that found that the 16th largest disinformation website's churn out more content than all Czech traditional media outlets combined. And that's easy, because if you don't do the research, you don't have to figure out the facts. It's a lot easier to tune that out. That is rewarded by the algorithm. Any kind of outrage is rewarded by the algorithm. It's called engagement based ranking. We know what the problem is. We have the solution. It's called article 34 Digital Services Act. If there's a systemic risk to public discourse and election, the Commission can take measures. And the Commission is not taking those measures because they are afraid of the US administration, they are being threatened. We're being blackmailed. That's the whole thing. So let's stop complaining about we don't know what the solution is. We know exactly what the solution is. The commission is refusing to act. So let's, you know, pass a resolution, put that in our report that that exactly is the problem. This is how we solve it. And then everything gets a lot easier and democracy gets a win. But let's act on this, please. And if you could comment on whether you see that in the Czech elections and what do you want the commission to do? Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Yes, thank you very much. First of all, I very much agree with the EPP colleagues on the importance of algorithms. Um, so I would like to see that aspects. I know you mentioned it in the report, but it is very general. So I think this needs to be done in a much more specific way. And also suggesting measures on how to deal with that, because I don't think we just want to describe Vibe, the current situation and a second point. You ask for progress, I think. Or supporting, um, the foreign interest representation file under the defense of democracy. I would be very careful there not to refer to other files, because I personally do not think that that was actually increased transparency, because the minimum harmonization among member states would mean that, for example, in my member state that has a comprehensive transparency register, transparency would decrease. So I would be very careful. And I don't think it's our task to refer to it there. And um, a third aspect that has not been much mentioned is, um, addressing advertising online advertising markets. We have spoken also yesterday a lot about media, but not about the fact that media are running out of revenue because that revenue is not going to the publishers anymore, advertising revenue, but rather to Google and Meta, and that Google has a monopoly, as stated by a US court.”
  Digital advertising
• “President. Commissioner. Colleagues. President Trump is getting his allies to buy TikTok. Tiktok in the United States. Think of Auburn and has already said that it would like to turn it into a Maga propaganda machine. And the commission is still unable to answer the question as to whether the EU wants to continue to get the Chinese, TikTok or American election Election propaganda. But TikTok is already showing new users more far right content than anything else in the German federal election campaign. 78% of the content showed to neutral users came from the AfD, and in the runoff elections in Poland, there were five times more for the far right candidate. And every day, European citizens are asking me why they have to put up with this brain washing. And then they're starting to call loudly for European law. But the crazy thing is that the law actually exists, but the commission is refusing to apply it. The DSA says absolutely clearly that if the major digital platforms pose a systemic risk to public discourse and elections, then the commission must step in. But it's not doing so because it's afraid. Like so many governments, democracy is when people can find their own content on TikTok and not have it forced upon them from the Chinese government. And you're looking away and allowing this digitally directed fascism to take over. It's your job to stand up for democracy and ensure that that's available on the internet as well, and allow people to see on platforms what they want to see. Uh, not something which is forced on them by the Chinese government. So you need to act now because otherwise it's going to be too late. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “We already have in Europe. Um, just to mention, you know, stack at Hetzner and others. And um, where do you see the the key or what could we do as legislators to make sure that that graph is inversed that in a growing market, it's European companies who do not only grow, but grow their market share rather than shrinking their market share, even in times when that sector is growing so fast. So what can we do to support European cloud companies? Um, you already mentioned a little bit the cloud act. I don't know if everybody in the room understands what that means. In very simple terms, it means that the US government has access to data that is stored in Europe by American companies, even if the data is here. And I think that is very, very dangerous right now. So where do you see leverage in the AI and Cloud Development Act? Maybe to define data categories, to give definitions for real digital technological sovereignty. And um, what can we do about the vendor lock in, which is one of the main, uh, issues also for the fact that data is stored with American companies rather than with European companies. Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “So my question is, um, we do have an instrument, like you said, it's it's article 34 systemic risks. Um, do we have a systemic risk to public discourse and electoral processes? I think we also have a systemic risk to media freedom, because if media can't compete in an environment that systematically boosts propaganda, disinformation and violent false content, traditional media cannot compete and they lose, um, they lose revenue. And I think there's also an issue of freedom of expression, which also includes the right to have access to high quality information, which, with a limited attention span is is very difficult to find if you just have a look at your social media timeline. So don't you think with article 34 as systemic risk, we should tackle that risk a little bit more systemically, not only excluding monetization, where where it's very difficult to draw the line. I've been looking into that. What do you monetize? What don't you monetize in terms of legal content, but also investigating engagement based ranking and seeing if we can qualify engagement based ranking as a systemic risk as such to be replaced with expressed users choices of content. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Yes. Thank you very much. I'm standing in for our shadow rapporteur. Um, well, first of all, thanks a lot to the rapporteur for a very comprehensive and I think a very good report. I think that is is a great start. We're very happy to cooperate with this. And the rapporteur already pointed out that the Greens are focusing on fair rules online. I think that is extremely important because even the commission proposal, um, analyzes the situation in a way. That said, the basic problem is the business model of the social media and big tech platforms which privilege polarising, radicalizing and extremist content over any other content. Any kind of content. They privilege disinformation and lies over facts. They down rank media systematically. Um, and I would say they do infringe freedom of speech and freedom of information because for democratic, progressive or moderate politicians, we see that our content is distributed a lot less than the ones of extremist politicians. And I think we can all observe, um, the, the impact that has on the political landscape. So this is something that we need not only to call out, but also to recommend the measures that the commission can now take to counter this, which are all have a legal basis under the Digital Services Act or in some cases under the Digital Markets Act.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Um, secondly, I think this incentive system for disinformation, for unreliable information also systematically reduces information, the availability and the prominence of information or facts. And that infringes on the right to be informed and the right to be informed and to easily find correct information is also part of freedom of speech as defined within the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. So I have two ideas on what we could do to counter this. One is looking into the algorithms. Is engagement based ranking actually a form of of choosing content that reflects users choices? I don't think so. I think we need to look into different forms of algorithms and ask the commission to do so in order to get visibility for facts. And the second is a reform of the advertising, the online advertising system. We know that the US court has ruled that Google is a monopolist. Also in Europe, Google and meta control the majority of the online advertising market. This is the basic reason, because why the media is so underfunded and this is bad for publishers. It is bad for advertisers who can't control where their ads go. And it is bad for us as users and for media outlets. So let's look into what we can do if you have any suggestions there. Otherwise, it's a task for this committee and maybe we might want to invite Executive Vice President Ribera on the competition issue in the second half of the year to discuss this. Thank you.”
  Digital advertising · Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you very much, chair. I would like to to thank Mr. Quintarelli for pointing out also the the role of data and what the platforms know about us. Everybody knows everything about us. So that is part of the problem. But I would like to come back a little bit to the freedom of speech issue. You said every user it can reach, it's not the right that every user can reach everybody and all users in real time with any message. This is basically what Rene Diresta called speech is not reached. We know that Rene de rester has been the object of a really huge harassment campaign by Jim Jordan. She's patented her job, has been taken away, her department investigating Russian and Iranian disinformation has been shut down and so on. So this is really one of the core of the problem. Um, right now, this is not true because I with my speech as a progressive, pro-European, pro-democratic politician who does not send out messages based on violence and hate and anger reaches less people than a far right politician that chooses messages focusing on anger or a Russian Russian propagandist. So my right of freedom of speech is limited compared to others by the algorithm. Um, I had I was a conference a few weeks ago in Chicago. Um, there was the chairman of the FTC, Andrew Ferguson.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “What is matter learned from that? Do you really think this is what we need in the democracy? Such a sophisticated tool to make people hate each other and to engage in voter suppression, which is a very anti-democratic practice. People have the right to basic transparency to see who pays for ads. And I don't think that politicians and parties have the right to hide their messages from communities. I think we need to be transparent about our messages, and our writers have the right to see that. And if you have a doubt on how transparent these practices are, please read Sarah Wynn-williams book. She was the head of public affairs at meadow. She wrote a book that's called Careless People, which Mark Zuckerberg is preventing her from advertising. This is why we can't invite her in the European Parliament, because meta does not want transparency around their practices. And there was one chapter when the press after the 2016 election says, well, that's the Facebook election when Trump was elected. And Mark Zuckerberg says, well, no way. You know, we didn't have any role in that. And then on a long plane ride, his staff explained to him exactly how that was done.”
  Digital advertising
• “Thank you very much, chair and Madam Rapporteur, first of all, thanks. Thanks a lot for the draft report. Our group approaches the European Competitors fund in a very constructive spirit because we believe it can really give an important contribution in rebuilding a competitive economy in Europe. And we see this as a chance. I think we also need other instruments because as the public consultation by the Commission shows, one of the reasons we have a lack of innovation and competitiveness is the widespread underinvestment. And that is particularly true for the digital window and for digital sovereignty. So, um, first of all, we would focus on the sovereignty aspect. We know that there's a number of choke points where our companies are highly and our whole economy is highly dependent on foreign controlled infrastructures, just to mention the cloud market, for example, enterprise software, social networks, marketplaces that we all have, gatekeepers that all our companies depend on, that are not in our hands, and therefore the ECF must explicitly strengthen European tax sovereignty across the entire digital ecosystem. That is not only physical infrastructure, it's also services. It's platforms of all kinds, and obviously it's software and application and artificial intelligence. Um, secondly, we clearly have to prioritize investment in European owned and European governed digital capacities across the value chain and make also sure that if we invest European taxpayers money in start ups and scale ups, they have the possibility to find all the capital to need in Europe and cannot just exit to the US taking that money away. Um, secondly, competitiveness must deepen and not fragment the single market, but a competitive Europe is one that cuts.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Thank you very much, chair and Madam Rapporteur, first of all, thanks. Thanks a lot for the draft report. Our group approaches the European Competitors fund in a very constructive spirit because we believe it can really give an important contribution in rebuilding a competitive economy in Europe. And we see this as a chance. I think we also need other instruments because as the public consultation by the Commission shows, one of the reasons we have a lack of innovation and competitiveness is the widespread underinvestment. And that is particularly true for the digital window and for digital sovereignty. So, um, first of all, we would focus on the sovereignty aspect. We know that there's a number of choke points where our companies are highly and our whole economy is highly dependent on foreign controlled infrastructures, just to mention the cloud market, for example, enterprise software, social networks, marketplaces that we all have, gatekeepers that all our companies depend on, that are not in our hands, and therefore the ECF must explicitly strengthen European tax sovereignty across the entire digital ecosystem. That is not only physical infrastructure, it's also services. It's platforms of all kinds, and obviously it's software and application and artificial intelligence. Um, secondly, we clearly have to prioritize investment in European owned and European governed digital capacities across the value chain and make also sure that if we invest European taxpayers money in start ups and scale ups, they have the possibility to find all the capital to need in Europe and cannot just exit to the US taking that money away. Um, secondly, competitiveness must deepen and not fragment the single market, but a competitive Europe is one that cuts.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “So looking into if we look into funding mechanisms and supporting the press, I think it's very important to look where the private capital is actually going. And I don't think that one company can have a monopoly about deciding which content we see and where the advertising revenue goes. So I think this is something that is not very specific because it's competition and antitrust policy, but at least mentioning it that there is a financial problem and a revenue problem which is closely linked to the way digital platforms work. I think that is important. Last point Micro-targeting. Um, it was already mentioned by a colleague with whom probably I don't agree on anything else. But on this point, we do agree the commission has used that unlawfully, as stated also by the competent authority, when they microtargeted ads on X, when that was not allowed anymore, this is already prohibited. Nobody can use sensitive data in their privacy platforms, so we can call for better enforcement. And this is also very important for our defense and military effects. Just give me five minutes. Five seconds. Sorry. Um, because when micro-targeting, you can specifically target military personnel, for example, which is extremely important in the context of our discussion on on defense and military issues right now.”
  Digital advertising
• “That was quick. Thank you very much. And thanks to the brilliant panel. And thanks for also focusing on on the whole idea of a European tech system and digital ecosystem. I think that is that is very much needed. Um, I just want to remind everybody of a new study that came out last week by Sky news for UK that shows how X, for example, imposes right wing, far right and especially extremist content on all its users and very clearly against their stated preferences. This is really a study that I would like to invite everybody to read, because it very clearly shows that people are not shown in the internet, on digital platforms, what they want to see, as the platforms always claim. But what the owners of these platforms want them to see, or for political reasons, like in the case of Elon Musk, or simply for business reasons, because polarizing and extremist content makes them more advertising money. So this is very clear there here the freedom of speech, the freedom of information is being breached, is being violated by the platforms. And the commission should do something about it. Um, what we are seeing now is rather the contrary with the omnibuses. We are adapting EU rules to the rules that have been made by the digital infrastructure providers. And one of the speakers mentioned how the world is now is following Google's Google's rules, rather especially for content and media, rather than the rules that we have made as policymakers, as lawmakers. And we really shouldn't adapt our rules to Google's or the other companies rules, but we should make sure that our data is protected and our freedom is protected on the DMA.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “And I think this needs to be done. We also need to address the fact that some tech billionaires intervene directly on the algorithms to promote certain parties. There's a number of studies documenting this that I would very much love to present to this committee. And the second point, when you when you speak about the protection of politicians, I think we need to to mention that female politicians are a lot more affected by by threats online and offline in the real world, that needs to be taken into account when we speak about the presence of the commission is pushing for funding for the press, I think we need to address the fact that the online advertising system is controlled by monopoly, and that is the main reason why the press is underfunded. The revenue that used to go directly from advertisers to publishers now is going to Google. It's it's a very simple fact, and I think we need to address that and attack that monopoly in order to make sure that advertising money goes to a broader range of actors to to put this mildly, in particular to publishers. That is the reason for the underfunding. And I think we can just step in with taxpayers money while the money is going to Google because of a monopoly.”
  Digital advertising
• “This is basically the head of the US enforcement agency, expression of the current government. And he was explicitly asked, um, do you think if a person, a content or a person is downranked ranked shadow band. The message is still online, but very few people can see it compared to others. Is that still freedom of speech or is that an infringement of freedom of speech? And he said, this is freedom of speech. We will not go against shadow banning. We will not go against downranking certain people. It's just when the content gets deleted. And I don't think in Europe we have the same idea of freedom of speech that can systematically companies with the courage of the government can kind of content can be systematically limited. So coming back to the algorithms, um, and that's also a question to Mrs. Grotnik. You said you focused on implicit versus explicit choices. Um, now it's implicit choices. How long you watch a video, do you engage with it? What about having algorithms that focus a lot more on the explicit choices that people make when they say, this is the kind of content I want to see, because this is not respected by platforms, do you think that would be a way forward?”
  Disinformation & online freedoms