Digital Rights campaigning in the EU, Yana Breindl ECF 2012
1. Digital Rights Campaigning:
How do decision-makers perceive
civil society input?
Yana Breindl
Post-doctoral fellow
Oxford Internet Institute
21 March 2012
15. The EU Telecoms reform
Five European directives regulating the European
telecommunications market
Two controversial issues:
– Graduated response / three-strikes
– Net neutrality
20. Awareness
“It's impossible not to notice or be insensitive to
their argumentation”
(ADLE political adviser)
“When you looked at sorts of networking sites, you
could see my reply was being passed around and
then people would contact you. In some stage, it
was like having your exam papers marked”
(EPP-ED MEP, rapporteur)
21. Credibility
“You absolutely had to take [them] into account.
Because behind them, there was an entire population of
people who make the economy of the future”
(ADLE adviser)
“They present themselves as three guys in a garage but
behind they do have a few very well informed and
educated persons who are very competent on a certain
number of issues”
(committee administrator)
“Loose interpretation that references previous stages but
rewrites certain parts”
(S&D assistant)
22. Change
“When there is this type of campaign,
everybody starts doubting”
(ADLE adviser)
“It showed how a small lobby, when they know
the techniques, can reach a lot”
(Committee administrator)
« Reflections of campaign all over package »
(EP administrator)
24. Was the campaign successful?
Broad awareness inside the institutions
Battle for credibility
Legitimacy
Persuasion/expertise
Relative influence
Strong counter-lobbying
Electoral pressure (or lack of)
Relative power of the European Parliament
25. Conclusions
• How inclusive are political institutions?
– Functional integration
• What type of citizen input is valued?
Pure quantity of emails not sufficient, need to be
different, fact-based and supported by direct
contact with MEPs.
Increases threshold for collective action.
= assemblage of objects, subjects and semantic resources. Technologies have always played an important role in collective action (show examples of that)
Internet supported – low threshold Donating money, helping fair trade ( platforms to determine correct price etc.), street demonstrations
Internet supported – high threshold Transnational demonstrations (Iraq war in 2003), transnational meetings or more violent protest actions
Internet based – low threshold Online petitions, virtual sit-ins, Emergence of new movements: Avaaz
Internet based – high threshold Protest websites, alternative media sites, culture jamming, hacktivism : Indymedia website ‘ electronic civil disobedience’, ‘hacktivism’ or as ‘cyber-terrorism’
Internet based – high threshold Hacktivism : ‘ electronic civil disobedience’, ‘hacktivism’ or as ‘cyber-terrorism’
Objective is to influence policy-making process
(competition, spectrum, European regulatory authority, consumer protection...).
High threshold and internet-based
Open collaboration (add images of wiki, etherpad, etc.)
Open collaboration
EU Parliament open for civil society input. But, most MEPs not concerned directly with package. Internet issues considered as an economical issue (not a civil society one) or a hobby/gadget. Massive lobbying campaign: repeated emails, phone calls and letters to MEPs, media attention (am. 138). Online monitoring not welcomed by all MEPs: Oversimplification and misrepresentation of a complex piece of legislation. Absence of debate on other issues covered by package.
Legitimacy – persuasive presentation of claims and expertise. Persuasive presentation of claims and expertise Critiques of citizen instrumentation, copy-paste activism, Attempts to discredit activists. Perceived as dogmatic and not-fact based, storytelling
MEPs would double-check facts and position on controversial amendments: Influence on overall package small but very important on amendment 138 (three-strikes), less so on net neutrality. Influence reduced during conciliation, after elections.
