“Wikipedia [has always had] a bold and valuable ambition, to let members of the public come together to create a high-quality free global repository of knowledge. I firmly believe that more access to information allows individuals and societies to make better decisions. It also empowers individuals to pursue their goals and interests, whether that is through research in an educational or career setting, by sharing random facts with friends, or plain curiosity. Wikipedia also has an essential feature, which is that it is published under a free copyright licence, meaning that third parties are lawfully permitted to reuse both Wikipedia content and software, for free, under permissive intellectual property licenses. This prevents contributions and knowledge being restricted or monopolised, and allows maximum opportunity for content to develop, and then to be shared with others. Wikipedia is not only a free resource for facts. Through its policies of open participation and presenting multiple points of view, it is a gateway to learning and being critical about knowledge and different ways of thinking - both as a reader or as an active contributor.”
“15 User empowerment duties (1) This section sets out the duties to empower adult users which apply in relation to Category 1 services. … (9) A duty to include in a service features which adult users may use or apply if they wish to filter out non-verified users. (10) The features referred to in subsection (9) are those which, if used or applied by a user, result in the use by the service of systems or processes designed to effectively— (a) prevent non-verified users from interacting with content which that user generates, uploads or shares on the service, and (b) reduce the likelihood of that user encountering content which non-verified users generate, upload or share on the service.” … (a) prevent non-verified users from interacting with content which that user generates, uploads or shares on the service, and (b) reduce the likelihood of that user encountering content which non-verified users generate, upload or share on the service.”
“In making [the] regulations… the Secretary of State must take into account the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service, and its functionalities, on how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service.”
“Research: Our research findings indicate that the features of a service most relevant to content being disseminated easily, quickly and widely are: • content recommender systems, because they are typically relied upon by services to amplify content to a wide set of users; and • the ability for users to forward or re-share content, because this facilitates users sharing content instantaneously with others. In our view, these two features each operate to increase dissemination of content easily, quickly and widely. Additionally, the effects of these features are likely to be increased further as the user base increases and when these features operate in combination. In essence, the higher the user base, the more content that is likely to be shared.”
“Advice: For these reasons, our advice is that category 1 thresholds should target services that fulfil either of the two following sets of conditions: Condition 1: • the use of a content recommender system on its service; and • have more than 34 million UK users on the user-to-user part of the service, representing c.50% of the UK population. Condition 2: • have a functionality that offers users the ability to forward or re-share user-generated content with other users of the service; and • the use of a content recommender system on its service; and • have more than 7 million UK users on the user-to-user part of the service, representing c.10% of the UK population.”
“3.18 We analysed each of the six functionalities and content recommender systems and have concluded that two, in particular, stand out from our research as playing a particularly significant role in the dissemination of regulated user-generated content. These are: a) the use of a content recommender system; and b) the ability to forward or re-share user-generated content with other users of the service. 3.19 Content recommender systems amplify the breadth, scale and speed of content dissemination on a service by proactively disseminating content to new users or groups of users. Content recommender systems therefore play a fundamental role in enabling content to be disseminated easily, quickly and widely. Forwarding or re-sharing existing content with other users of a service is another key component of content dissemination, as it allows for the movement of existing content to new users or groups of users, by specifically enabling users themselves to affect content dissemination. These two features allow both the service and the user to affect the dissemination of content. … 3.23 …we judge that where services have a very large number of users, a content recommender system alone is sufficient for content to be disseminated easily, quickly and widely. This is because a service’s content recommendation system results, in and of itself, in the dissemination of content to a very large audience without the need for users themselves to further share content. 3.24 Where services have a lower but still considerable number of users, a content recommender system alone may not be sufficient to disseminate content quickly, easily and widely. We judge that the ability for users to forward or re-share existing content on the service operates in conjunction with a content recommender to increase the likelihood of quick, easy and wide content dissemination: this can occur both through active content dissemination, driven by users' own engagement with content, as well as via content dissemination driven by the service's own systems. 3.25 Based on our analysis above, we therefore consider it appropriate to recommend two sets of thresholds for category 1. 3.26 We are required to recommend a user number threshold to the Secretary of State. In doing so we have exercised our regulatory judgement having regard to our general duties under theCommunications Act 2003 and the function we are carrying out. 3.27 Set one: Considering the quick, easy and wide dissemination of content, we judge that services with content recommender systems and very large user bases are relevant to category 1. Based on our analysis, we propose that a user number threshold of 34 million UK users of the user-to-user part of the service is appropriate for such services. This represents approximately 50% of the total UK population. 3.28 Set two: Considering the quick, easy and wide dissemination of content, we judge that services with content recommender systems, the ability for users to forward or re-share existing content on the service and large user bases are relevant to category 1. Based on our analysis, we propose that a user number threshold of 7 million UK users of the user-to-user part of the service is appropriate for such services. This represents approximately 10% of the total UK population. 3.29 Our preliminary indicative analysis suggests that approximately 12-16 services may meet one or both of these user number thresholds, when factoring in the impact of the functionality requirements described above. This estimated number of services in our view indicates that our recommended user number thresholds are likely to strike the right balance in terms of targeting those services where content is likely to be disseminated easily, quickly and widely, while ensuring that the duties apply to a sufficiently targeted number of services.”
“Definition of recommender systems: …the proposed definition is too broad and will encompass essentially any platform in the sector which organises content in any way. Content recommender systems are diverse in their design and application. While we recognise some content recommender systems are designed to encourage users to chase sitewide virality, which may lead to negative outcomes, others are designed for safety reasons, for marketplace efficiency, or are simply an ancillary part of the service. For example, they can be used to ensure that content deemed safe, age appropriate, or produced by a user with a positive safety track record is more visible to users. In addition, it would catch services that allow users to access recommended content but do not force them to use an algorithmic feed if they prefer not to. We therefore recommend that the definition of recommender system is made more detailed and nuanced, rather than simply the presence of the functionality, to avoid catching a high number of less risky platforms in Category 1. For example, systems with a safety component, systems merely reflecting past purchase history, as well as systems that are a minor and ancillary component of the service, should be exempted.”
“• Are there any recommender systems that Ofcom would discount in line with the definition? • Wikimedia raised concerns that the broadness of the definition would capture systems such as this [the Wikipedia “New Pages Feed”] - does Ofcom agree with this?”
“Ofcom judged that where services have a very large number of users, a content recommender system alone is sufficient for content to be disseminated easily, quickly and widely. This is because a service’s content recommendation system results, in and of itself, in the dissemination of content to a very large audience without the need for users themselves to further share content.”
“A policy-maker may reasonably decide that the disadvantages of a finely tuned solution to a problem outweigh its advantages and that a broader measure is preferable, even if the broader measure is both over- and under- inclusive in that it catches some cases in which there is no or no significant problem and fails to catch some cases in which the problem occurs.”
“465. In order to fall into the category of direct victims, the applicant must be able to show that he or she was “directly affected” by the measure complained of... This implies that the applicant has been personally and actually affected by the alleged violation of the Convention, which is normally the result of… acts… of State authorities… allegedly infringing the applicant’s Convention rights… 466. However, this does not necessarily mean that the applicant needed to be personally targeted by the act or omission complained of. What is important is that the impugned conduct personally and directly affected him or her… 469. Two types of potential victim status may be found in the case-law… The first type concerns persons who claim to be presently affected by a particular general legislative measure. The Court has specified that it may accept the existence of victim status where applicants contend that a law violates their rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they belong to a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation, or if they are required either to modify their conduct or risk being prosecuted (see Tănase v Moldova…)… 470. The second type concerns persons who argue that they may be affected at some future point in time. The Court has made clear that the exercise of the right of individual petition cannot be used to prevent a potential violation of the Convention and that, in theory, the Court cannot examine a violation other than a posteriori, once that violation has occurred. It is only in highly exceptional circumstances that an applicant may nevertheless claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention owing to the risk of a future violation… In general, the relevant test to examine the existence of such victim status is that the applicant must produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting him or her personally will occur; mere suspicion or conjecture being insufficient in this regard…”