Debate contributions by Axel VOSS

Mr President, Vice-President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen! We have to ask American companies whether they still have an interest in following our rules. At the moment, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Instead of cooperation, we are witnessing an increasingly open questioning – and in fact disregarding – of a European legal framework. Then we must also ask ourselves whether this should not also have consequences for their activities in our internal market. And Europe is not a control room at will, but we have something to show, we also have something to offer, and we are the ones who also want to combine values with technology accordingly. That is why we should seriously consider introducing sometimes harsher consequences if this attitude continues accordingly, for example through a review or, if necessary, an end to the transatlantic exchange of data. That's a threat, I don't think, that goes unheard. That's why we have to think about such things. We have something to offer than Europe, but that has to happen according to our rules. We therefore need the European strategy, new European speeds, the possibility of scaling up, new intensities, new investments, also venture capital. Then we have something to oppose them.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President! The Internet has long since ceased to be a technical – or merely a technical – infrastructure; It is a common public space in which we work, communicate and also live democracy. Therefore, no one – no power – is allowed to control, fragment or abuse it. That is why the Internet Governance Forum is actually indispensable, because it brings together governments, legislators, civil society, academia, and these impulses should also arise there, which actually flow into laws and rules worldwide accordingly. This year, as we have all learned, the focus was on protecting young people, especially with regard to social media. Here, I think, one could also clearly see that it is necessary to exchange views accordingly, but that it is also necessary for a Commission or even the EU to think about it strategically with the EU. soft power to advance on an equal footing with other states, so to speak, in order to also have their own negotiating power vis-à-vis the Big tech Strengthen accordingly. This is why the IGF is necessary when we use it, but we also need to use it strategically! We are clear and united in Europe, defending fundamental rights – no to mass surveillance, no to a digital world that only serves a few – and that is why we know: Freedom on the internet is only possible if everyone has access to it, and affordable and secure connectivity is not a luxury issue, but a question of participation, development, education, democracy and even strengthening a negotiating position when we join forces with the others.

Mr President! It is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak here today under your supervision. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me make one thing clear: This is not just a question of the United Kingdom’s willingness to accede to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements; I think we all agree that the UK is capable of doing this. The real question is how the Commission handles the accession of third countries and whether it respects the role of Parliament accordingly. The written assessment we received does not follow the procedure set out in Article 218(6) TFEU. There is no proposal to the Council, no request for Parliament's consent, just an information note. This may be in line with current practice, but it is not really applicable law. The Court has already made it clear: Even a so-called non-objection is an international agreement. So, Parliament needs to be involved, and this is not a voluntary decision. The Committee on Legal Affairs therefore tabled an oral question with the resolution to ask the Commission to confirm its legal approach and to remind it that Parliament's legislative powers in this area should not be circumvented either. We support the accession of the United Kingdom, of course, but this support must not come at the expense of due process.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President! It is undeniable that social media influences our society, our opinions and our behaviour. We can remember: Arab Spring 2010, 2011, where we all thought social media brought transparency and democracy to the world. 14, 15 years later, we stand with our backs to the wall and have to defend democracy. The influence on elections is quite obvious: U.S. election, Romania, maybe even German election. We can regret all this, but we also have to do something and take a differentiated approach, because the platforms do not always have the same intention. First of all, I think we must also recognize that the right to freedom of expression is not a super-fundamental right. It is an important right, but it does not exist without limits, and in Germany it is called the practical concordance, namely the compensation for other fundamental rights. Other values and rights must be reconciled with this. Conscious politically oriented disinformation and false information are not part of it, criminal acts are not part of it. Secondly, we need: the DSA – which is not legally sufficient – here we need to strengthen; Thirdly: the enforcement of the DSA is quite robust, which we need to do; Fourthly: a Factchecking with methods of labelling or demarcation to abuse; Fifth: Disclosure of algorithms, perhaps an evaluation. And sixthly: Why don't we build our own medium?

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Social media practices today have simply become a real security risk to our democracy: Whether the X is for election interference, whether the Telegram is for security, or whether the TikTok is in some sort of state mandate, it has become a kind of hybrid warfare. We saw this during the US elections. We saw that in the European elections. We saw it in Romania. We must try to stop all this. And it can't be that owners of certain platforms can send something to every user, even though you don't follow them, as happened with X in the US election. In this case, the younger generations in particular are of course also exposed to a mass of misinformation and disinformation, where it is always more difficult to penetrate accordingly due to AI. In addition, some of these contents are also harmful to health. The question is, how can we act accordingly? And we should actually ask ourselves this question much more often. Is it design of the algorithms? Is it the recommendation systems? Is it the evaluation of contributions? Is it the monetization that plays a role there? Should you be fined accordingly or this was rooms Introduce? Or should we just say: Are there posts for followers only? This would then basically be democracy, where the individual can choose for himself what information he receives accordingly.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We cannot really be shocked by the findings of the Draghi report. We've been hearing the lawsuit for years, and we don't really take it seriously. When do we have to wake up, I think? The digital agenda belongs at the top of our whole agenda, and that really has to be at the top to take the people here with us. When it comes to digital competition, we need: firstly, a guarantee for high-speed connections, for a robust digital infrastructure; Secondly, a clear strategy for digital skills, which also pools resources accordingly; Thirdly, an EU visa programme also for digital talent in the world; fourthly, an open and unified database for individuals and businesses to find retraining opportunities and training programmes; and fifthly, we should also offer online courses for free in order to develop digital skills. In any case, we should really take these developments seriously, and we cannot seriously complain today that someone outside the European Commission or outside Parliament is telling us what we need to do; It should come from ourselves. That is why I hope that we will finally follow this path.