Skip to main content
European Citizens´ Initiative Forum

Reclaim the Future — AI for People, Not Profit

Author: Alessio Ballarin |
Updated on: 16 March 2026 |
Number of views: 209

Hello everyone!

I'm Alessio Ballarin — initiator of "Reclaim the Future — AI for People, Not Profit", a civic movement willing to bring concrete proposals on ethical AI to the European Commission and the United Nations.

Our ECI calls for:
- Democratic, sector-by-sector AI governance
- Personal data sovereignty protected by law
- Public, open-source, non-profit AI
- A fund for workers displaced by automation
- Proportional reduction of working hours as AI advances
- International cooperation — not a technological arms race
- Decisions built for the next 50 years, not the next quarter

Where we stand: I already have two co-organizers — one Italian and one German citizen. To formally register the initiative with the Commission, we need at least 7 EU citizens residing in 7 different EU countries. I need 5 more people from 5 different European countries.

I'm looking for anyone willing to:

Join as an official co-organizer.

Offer advice, contacts, or experience with previous ECIs

Any help is really appreciated

Something important is at stake here — something that affects all of us.

Thanks you

Alessio

1
Vote

Leave a comment

To be able to add comments, you need to authenticate or register.

Comments

João Simas | 18 March 2026

Thank you for sharing this initiative, it raises important and timely questions about the societal and democratic implications of AI.

As you know, I am currently developing a related idea on the ECI Forum, focusing on a more legally targeted approach, namely potential amendments to the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), particularly concerning safeguards in legal and judicial contexts.

I believe there could be interesting complementarities between broader policy-oriented proposals and more focused, legally grounded initiatives.

In that regard, how do you currently see the legal framing of your proposal in terms of scope and EU competences?

I would be glad to exchange views on how different approaches could potentially align within the ECI framework.

Best regards,
João

Alessio Ballarin | 20 March 2026

Hi and thank you for your message and for the work you're developing.
I want to let you know that I'm not a lawyer (I studied astronomy and now work in IT), so I had a bit of a hard time coming up with an answer for you :) .
This is precisely the kind of complementary approach the European debate needs.

To answer your question directly on legal framing: our proposal is grounded in new horizontal legislation that does not aim to replace or directly amend Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, but rather to extend and complete it in areas the AI Act does not sufficiently cover.
Specifically: worker protection from automation, proportional reduction of working hours as AI advances, public funding of non-profit open-source AI, and democratic sectoral governance of AI systems.

The legal basis we intend to use is Article 114 TFEU (internal market - already the primary legal basis of the AI Act itself), combined with Article 153 TFEU (social policy and employment) a dual basis reflecting both the technological and the human/labour dimension of our proposal.

Let me know what you think about.

Regards,

Alessio

João Simas | 21 March 2026

Hi Alessio,

Thank you again for your detailed and thoughtful reply. I find your approach particularly interesting in how it brings together technological regulation with broader social and labour considerations.

Just for context and transparency, I should mention that I'm not a lawyer yet. I currently studying law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon (FDUL), and gradually specialising in EU law. Interestingly, this path builds on a prior background in IT (programming, data analysis and some work with AI) which is what led me to engage with this topic from a more regulatory perspective.

In terms of approach, I see our initiatives as operating at different, but potentially complementary, levels. Yours takes a broader, policy-oriented perspective, which plays an important role in shaping the wider societal debate. In my case, I have been working on a more narrowly scoped and legally structured proposal, with particular attention to clearly defined objectives, precise legal anchoring (including within the AI Act framework), and alignment with the Commission’s competences under the ECI Regulation.

One aspect I have found particularly important, in light of the official ECI guidance, is ensuring that the initiative is framed to maximise the chances of full registration and minimise the risk of partial registration due to EU competence constraints.

From that perspective, I believe there is clear value in bridging these approaches: broader policy visions can help shape direction and legitimacy, while more targeted legal mechanisms can help translate those ideas into forms that are operational within the EU institutional framework.

I would be happy to continue exchanging views along these lines and would very much welcome your thoughts.

Best regards,
João

Elias Lars Telander | 23 March 2026

I must say. Im intruiged by this proposal. but i do have some questions. As it stands im also working on creating a framework for my own and do se its similarities.

1. when it comes to "Democratic, sector-by-sector AI governance" and "Personal data sovereignty protected by law". dose that include regulating the use of AI catagorasation and identification systems?

2. What dose "Democratic, sector-by-sector AI governance" encompas in this enitiative?

3. In "Personal data sovereignty protected by law". To what extent dose personal data count as? Is it only biometric data or is it more than that?

My enitiative is first and for most agianst the use of AI catagorasation systems and AI identification systems. and in general forced to give out data that can make you identifiable outside the internet and remove anonymity.

If you find it to resonate with your enitiative in some parts, just let me know.