Democratic Responsibility Statement

GovLens exists to make the work of the European Parliament more accessible. We believe transparency strengthens representative democracy rather than undermining it. When citizens can see how laws are made and how their representatives vote, they can make more informed electoral choices.

However, transparency tools carry responsibility. The information we present can be misused, taken out of context, or weaponized for political purposes. We take this responsibility seriously.

Our user base is self-selecting, not representative. People who sign up for GovLens tend to be more politically engaged, younger, more educated, and more likely to be from Western EU member states than the EU population as a whole.

For this reason, GovLens sentiment data should never be presented as representing "public opinion" or "what citizens want." It represents the views of GovLens users only. We are transparent about this limitation in all our data exports, API responses, and on-platform displays.

Any journalist, researcher, or organisation citing GovLens data has a responsibility to communicate this distinction clearly.

A headline number without demographics is irresponsible. When we display a gap between citizen sentiment and MEP voting, we always present it with context:

• The number of citizen positions (sample size)
• The geographic distribution of those positions
• The verification tier of participants
• The inherent limitations of self-selected data

MEPs who vote differently from GovLens user sentiment are not necessarily acting against citizen interests. They may be responding to committee expertise, constituent needs not captured by our platform, coalition agreements, or information not available to the public. A gap is a signal for inquiry, not an indictment.

GovLens is non-partisan. We do not advocate for or against any legislation, political party, or MEP. Our platform presents data without editorial commentary or recommendations.

• We do not rank MEPs as "good" or "bad" based on alignment scores
• We do not frame any vote outcome as the "right" or "wrong" decision
• We do not partner with political campaigns or advocacy organisations
• We do not accept advertising from political entities
• Our funding sources are publicly disclosed

If any GovLens content is perceived as partisan, we consider that a bug and will correct it.

We have identified scenarios where the responsible action would be to suspend or shut down GovLens, partially or entirely:

• Systematic manipulation: If we discover that our data is being systematically manipulated at scale and we cannot adequately detect or prevent it, we will suspend the affected features rather than publish unreliable data.
• Weaponisation: If GovLens data is being used as a tool for harassment, intimidation, or threats against elected representatives, and our safeguards prove insufficient, we will restrict access to the affected data.
• Democratic harm: If credible evidence emerges that GovLens is undermining rather than strengthening democratic processes — for example, by enabling foreign interference operations or by creating perverse incentives that damage legislative quality — we will seek independent review and act on recommendations.
• Privacy breach: If citizen identity data is compromised despite our privacy architecture, we will immediately suspend the platform, notify affected users, and engage data protection authorities.

These criteria are reviewed annually by our advisory board. The decision to invoke any of them requires documented evidence and is not taken lightly.