Reclaim the Future — AI for People, Not Profit | European Citizens´ Initiative Forum

Author: Alessio Ballarin |

Updated on: 16 March 2026 |

Number of views: 853

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

Categories

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.

Filip bowtruczuk | 06 June 2026

Thank you for working on this initiative. Controlling the implications of AI in aspects like economy and democracy is really important. I am unfortunately below 18 years old needed to help.

But i have a few questions and ideas.

First- how would this democratic governance look ?

Secondly I think every AI model should need a european licence with it's algorithm checked to know if the model is safe.

Also I am not sure how the international cooperation would work in increasingly hostile world with USA China Russia etc. But i think we should try to stop development of AI for a certain period of time ( maybe six months) to develop some safety procedures in case of AI trying to be Independent from humans.

I would also propose that this public AI would have a fact-checking function on social media platforms. That AI could be supposed to be like Gemini ( if you open Google you get a short answers from AI).

I cogitate we should already start with a 36 hours working week, because AI already replaced some Jobs and researches show that this desicion could increase productivity.

Lastly what decisions you mean by "Decisions built for the next 50 years, not the next quarter" ? If their would be mass redundancies you consider universal basic income?

Best regards,

Filip

Alessio Ballarin | 07 June 2026

Thank you so much for this thoughtful message, and don't worry about the age limit for signing, your ideas matter just as much. This is exactly the kind of engaged thinking we need more of.

Let me go through your points one by one.

Democratic governance of AI would work through independent sectoral commissions; think of bodies similar to how food safety agencies or pharmaceutical regulators operate, but for AI. Citizens, scientists, workers, and ethicists would have a seat at the table, not just tech companies. Elected representatives would set the boundaries; experts would enforce them. No single corporation or government would have unilateral control.

A European AI licence - you're essentially describing something close to what the EU AI Act already starts to sketch, but we need it to go further. Mandatory algorithmic audits before deployment, not after damage is done. Your instinct is right: flying without a pilot licence isn't allowed; deploying a powerful AI without certification shouldn't be either.

International cooperation is genuinely hard in a fragmented world. A moratorium on frontier AI development (your "six months" idea) has actually been proposed by leading scientists like Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, the very people who built modern AI. It's controversial but not naive. The logic: you don't run faster when you can't see where you're going.

36-hour work week - yes, and some countries are already piloting it with strong results. We shouldn't wait for mass unemployment to act. Gradual, proportional reduction as automation advances is part of our proposal.

"Decisions built for 50 years" — this means not letting short-term profit or electoral cycles dictate choices that will shape your generation's entire adult life. On UBI: it's one serious option on the table, alongside reduced working hours and worker transition funds. We don't dogmatically commit to one model - we commit to protecting people first.

Your voice, even before you turn 18, is part of this movement. Share the petition, talk to people around you, keep asking these questions.

-----

-> Sign and share: https://c.org/KVRzG5W4qK

-----

The next step: after building awareness on Change.org, we will submit this as a formal European Citizens' Initiative.

If you know anyone who is interested in this cause and willing to promote it alongside me, please feel free to share my contact information.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on the ECI Forum reflect solely the point of view of their authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the position of the European Commission or of the European Union.

Reclaim the Future — AI for People, Not Profit

Leave a comment

Comments