On 6 June, it's time to vote European Parliament elections in the Netherlands. But what is it really all about? Which parties tackle the issues you care about? Europe is often about migration, agriculture and defence, but there is so much more your vote can influence. Waag Futurelab dived into the party manifestos for the European elections and listed them for you.
In the first part, we look at open and fair digital technology. How do parties envision the digitalisation of Europe? What risks, opportunities and visions are described? What do parties think about regulating large technology companies?
First impression: is this topic mentioned?
Keywords used in election programmes: technology, digitisation, Big Tech, algorithms, social media, privacy, AI
Many parties have included plans for digitisation and technology in their manifestos for this year's European elections. Whereas technology was previously described mainly as innovation and progress, the concentrated power relationship of Big Tech is now more clearly named, as are the risks to the rule of law, polarising social media algorithms and global tensions that technology or digitisation can create. In addition, disinformation, the influence of Big Tech, sovereignty through new digital infrastructures, protection of personal data and privacy, development of AI and algorithms, and the importance of good legislation are mentioned as key issues by the parties. But there are also parties that see less importance in these issues. The PVV's election manifesto does not address any of the above search terms.
And, what do the parties say about it?
The majority of the parties want to focus on technological advances that enhance the functioning of democracy and society. They want to reduce the digital divide, create transparency on the use of data and encourage control over the use of personal data. GL-PvDA, CDA and VVD argue for limits on ‘unethical technologies’, including profiling and biometric algorithms. They rightly argue that these lead to human rights violations, as in the ethnic profiling of victims by the Tax Administration during the benefits affair.
VVD : ‘[...] these digital innovations also pose risks to the fabric of our free societies, making regulation necessary.’
GL-PvDA, CDA, D66, Christenunie and NSC show in their programmes that regulation and the power relationship between user and provider of technology are high on the agenda. According to them, European technology and regulation should better reflect the needs of citizens. By pursuing a sound economy and adhering to ethical standards, they want to harness technology for European benefit. Most parties focus on protecting the independence of our digital ecosystem from the United States and China through strict regulation. Christenunie, NSC, D66 and Volt also name more control over one's own digital identity as an important pillar in their plans.
ChristenUnie: ‘It sometimes seems as if the rule of law does not apply in the digital world.’
It is also notable that encouraging open source software development is central to Volt, D66 and GL-PvdA as an alternative to the centralised power of Big Tech companies on our digital ecosystem. Among other things, Volt and GL-PvdA want to make the open source approach mandatory for software developed or funded on behalf of the government.
VOLT: ‘all public services across Europe [should] be connected and able to collaborate with each other and enforce an open data and open source approach for all publicly procured software and data.’
What does Waag think of the plans?
Danny Lämmerhirt leads the Future Internet Lab at Waag. He argues that the subject matter is thankfully being addressed by many parties: ‘But essential details are missing with regard to the practical implementation of many of these plans.
In tightening European legislation, he indicates that it is important to give civil society organisations a role in monitoring data from governments and companies for the public interest. In this, Danny says, it is essential to further elaborate on the coherence between between different types of legislation (e.g. AVG, DGA, DSA) regarding privacy, data management and responsibility for preventing the spread of disinformation.
What does Waag think of the plans?
Danny Lämmerhirt leads the Future Internet Lab at Waag. He argues that the issues are addressed by many parties: ‘But there are essential details missing with regard to the practical implementation of many of these plans.’
In tightening European legislation, he indicates that it is important to give civil society organisations a role in monitoring data from governments and companies for the public interest. In this, Danny says, it is essential to further elaborate on the coherence between between different types of legislation (e.g. AVG, DGA, DSA) regarding privacy, data management and responsibility for preventing the spread of disinformation.
Danny advocates granting civil society organisations privileges to study and monitor platform algorithms. Waags Research Director Sander van der Waal and Danny wrote a position paper for the Dutch Parliament to call for an extension of existing legislation that can ‘support civil society to protect citizens’ data rights’. This could include giving citizens permission to share their retrieved data with civil society organisations.
Danny further notes that the VVD, D66, GL-PvdA want to tackle fake news and disinformation with the generation of a ‘watermark’ indicating whether the content has been developed by artificial intelligence. This interest is in line with research by Waag and the NL AI Coalition (2024), which shows that the Dutch population is concerned about the reliability of A.I. generated information on the internet. Danny says that the long-term effectiveness of this approach is debatable, because researchers do not yet have a clear picture of how people assess the reliability of content and what role watermarks play in this. Research shows that when estimating the trustworthiness of a source, people primarily look at the creator. This is where source validation could help. Waag is experimenting with this approach in the Proof of Provenance project.
Danny also welcomes GL-PvdA and Volt's approach to open source software to reduce European dependence on large commercial platforms. However, he does miss concrete ways in which they can encourage and implement this approach. This could be through the creation of a financial fund that open source organisations can call on, like the German ‘Sovereign Tech Fund’ or by supporting a ‘digital public infrastructure based on open source software’ pulled by the European Digital Infratructure Consortium (EDIC).
Okay, where can I read more about this topic?
In early 2024, Waag and European partners launched the Mobifree project, with the aim of providing European residents and organisations with more choice and access to open source developed mobile software that matches their values and needs. Agreeing with Volt and GL-PvdA's programme, Waag sees the open source approach to software development as an important alternative to the problems caused by Big Tech. Through transparency, collaboration and a multidisciplinary approach, Waag strives to provide an alternative to the current mobile offering, which is now largely owned by Apple and Alphabet (Google). Furthermore, Waag is working on the Open Government Action Plan 2023-2027, in which Waag investigates how citizens can ‘get a grip on their own data’. We are analysing existing tools made available by the government to give citizens insight into data the government uses from them.
30 years of Waag Futurelab & getting a grip on technology
This year, Waag Futurelab celebrates its 30th anniversary. From the first ‘social medium’ De Digitale Stad, accessible to a wide audience, via designing a sustainable modular Fairphone, or the first training for Biohackers in Europe, to advising the state secretary for Digital Affairs and a citizen science network in North Holland: for 30 years, Waag has been working on getting a grip on technology for everyone. That grip on technology is at the heart of this anniversary year, in our stories and in our programming.
