Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Did Adolf Hitler offer to make Dhyan Chand a Field Marshal in the German army?Was there an electoral fraud during the referendum for the independance of Scotland?Were the Cologne attacks under-reported by the German media?Were German police instructed to give information about crimes committed by refugees to the press only upon request?Did a German party ask a Holocaust denier to assess the antisemitism of a party member?Did Nazi Germany use the German census in its targeting of minoritiesDid a German judge acquit a man of rape because he is Turkish?Did the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) post this advert in Turkish?If a man gets raped, does he have to pay childsupport in practice?2 % of 'the rich' pay 50 % of taxes in Germany

Understanding p-Values using an example

Is it dangerous to install hacking tools on my private linux machine?

Co-worker has annoying ringtone

Can two person see the same photon?

Positioning dot before text in math mode

How do living politicians protect their readily obtainable signatures from misuse?

Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?

Why weren't discrete x86 CPUs ever used in game hardware?

How does the math work when buying airline miles?

How would a mousetrap for use in space work?

Strange behavior of Object.defineProperty() in JavaScript

Plot data from external file with floating numbers

I can't update due to The repository 'http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/strycore/xUbuntu_16.04 ./ Release' is not signed

Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?

My mentor says to set image to Fine instead of RAW — how is this different from JPG?

retrieve food groups from food item list

Resize vertical bars (absolute-value symbols)

How to force a browser when connecting to a specific domain to be https only using only the client machine?

Synonym of Dream Interpreter

How many morphisms from 1 to 1+1 can there be?

Can an iPhone 7 be made to function as a NFC Tag?

RSA find public exponent

How does Belgium enforce obligatory attendance in elections?

What is the chair depicted in Cesare Maccari's 1889 painting "Cicerone denuncia Catilina"?



Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Did Adolf Hitler offer to make Dhyan Chand a Field Marshal in the German army?Was there an electoral fraud during the referendum for the independance of Scotland?Were the Cologne attacks under-reported by the German media?Were German police instructed to give information about crimes committed by refugees to the press only upon request?Did a German party ask a Holocaust denier to assess the antisemitism of a party member?Did Nazi Germany use the German census in its targeting of minoritiesDid a German judge acquit a man of rape because he is Turkish?Did the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) post this advert in Turkish?If a man gets raped, does he have to pay childsupport in practice?2 % of 'the rich' pay 50 % of taxes in Germany










48















One of the governing parties of Germany - the CDU/CSU - claimed on Twitter that American corporations "bought" demonstrators at the recent demonstrations against article 13:




Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht source



My translation: When American corporations try to prevent laws with massive misinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is in danger.




The German tabloid "Bild" is more specific: Sourced to the head of the CDU/CSU in the European parliament, Daniel Caspary, they claim that demonstrators got up to 450 Euro for participating in demonstrations from a "so called NGO" and that some of the money came from "American internet companies".



This seems like a nonsense conspiracy theory, but given the source, I think it's worth exploring. Is there any evidence that protestors were payed 450 Euro to demonstrate against article 13?










share|improve this question



















  • 22





    There were 40000 demonstrators in Munich alone. How many of those were paid? How did American companies contact and pay that many (or even a useful portion of that many) without anyone breaking the story before hand?

    – JRE
    Mar 24 at 9:55






  • 6





    An America-investigation will clear up this collusion and foreign interference.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 10:29






  • 12





    @LangLangC: It is significant regardless of how many believe it. This isn't some random schmoe spouting trash. It is a known politician in an important post spouting trash on his party's official twitter feed, and making the same (and more detailed) statement to the press.

    – JRE
    Mar 24 at 11:53







  • 5





    @pmf I haven't seen any, but assuming that there is a massive investment in ads, that would just be a sign for an information campaign. "Desinformationen" would require that the ads contain false or misleading information (which I have thus far only seen from the proponents of the reform).

    – tim
    Mar 25 at 10:42






  • 4





    I was there and didn't get paid. I gonna sue them

    – undefined
    Mar 25 at 14:43















48















One of the governing parties of Germany - the CDU/CSU - claimed on Twitter that American corporations "bought" demonstrators at the recent demonstrations against article 13:




Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht source



My translation: When American corporations try to prevent laws with massive misinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is in danger.




The German tabloid "Bild" is more specific: Sourced to the head of the CDU/CSU in the European parliament, Daniel Caspary, they claim that demonstrators got up to 450 Euro for participating in demonstrations from a "so called NGO" and that some of the money came from "American internet companies".



This seems like a nonsense conspiracy theory, but given the source, I think it's worth exploring. Is there any evidence that protestors were payed 450 Euro to demonstrate against article 13?










share|improve this question



















  • 22





    There were 40000 demonstrators in Munich alone. How many of those were paid? How did American companies contact and pay that many (or even a useful portion of that many) without anyone breaking the story before hand?

    – JRE
    Mar 24 at 9:55






  • 6





    An America-investigation will clear up this collusion and foreign interference.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 10:29






  • 12





    @LangLangC: It is significant regardless of how many believe it. This isn't some random schmoe spouting trash. It is a known politician in an important post spouting trash on his party's official twitter feed, and making the same (and more detailed) statement to the press.

    – JRE
    Mar 24 at 11:53







  • 5





    @pmf I haven't seen any, but assuming that there is a massive investment in ads, that would just be a sign for an information campaign. "Desinformationen" would require that the ads contain false or misleading information (which I have thus far only seen from the proponents of the reform).

    – tim
    Mar 25 at 10:42






  • 4





    I was there and didn't get paid. I gonna sue them

    – undefined
    Mar 25 at 14:43













48












48








48


3






One of the governing parties of Germany - the CDU/CSU - claimed on Twitter that American corporations "bought" demonstrators at the recent demonstrations against article 13:




Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht source



My translation: When American corporations try to prevent laws with massive misinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is in danger.




The German tabloid "Bild" is more specific: Sourced to the head of the CDU/CSU in the European parliament, Daniel Caspary, they claim that demonstrators got up to 450 Euro for participating in demonstrations from a "so called NGO" and that some of the money came from "American internet companies".



This seems like a nonsense conspiracy theory, but given the source, I think it's worth exploring. Is there any evidence that protestors were payed 450 Euro to demonstrate against article 13?










share|improve this question
















One of the governing parties of Germany - the CDU/CSU - claimed on Twitter that American corporations "bought" demonstrators at the recent demonstrations against article 13:




Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht source



My translation: When American corporations try to prevent laws with massive misinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is in danger.




The German tabloid "Bild" is more specific: Sourced to the head of the CDU/CSU in the European parliament, Daniel Caspary, they claim that demonstrators got up to 450 Euro for participating in demonstrations from a "so called NGO" and that some of the money came from "American internet companies".



This seems like a nonsense conspiracy theory, but given the source, I think it's worth exploring. Is there any evidence that protestors were payed 450 Euro to demonstrate against article 13?







politics germany democracy






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 24 at 21:29









LangLangC

17.7k47287




17.7k47287










asked Mar 24 at 8:11









timtim

38.8k13147148




38.8k13147148







  • 22





    There were 40000 demonstrators in Munich alone. How many of those were paid? How did American companies contact and pay that many (or even a useful portion of that many) without anyone breaking the story before hand?

    – JRE
    Mar 24 at 9:55






  • 6





    An America-investigation will clear up this collusion and foreign interference.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 10:29






  • 12





    @LangLangC: It is significant regardless of how many believe it. This isn't some random schmoe spouting trash. It is a known politician in an important post spouting trash on his party's official twitter feed, and making the same (and more detailed) statement to the press.

    – JRE
    Mar 24 at 11:53







  • 5





    @pmf I haven't seen any, but assuming that there is a massive investment in ads, that would just be a sign for an information campaign. "Desinformationen" would require that the ads contain false or misleading information (which I have thus far only seen from the proponents of the reform).

    – tim
    Mar 25 at 10:42






  • 4





    I was there and didn't get paid. I gonna sue them

    – undefined
    Mar 25 at 14:43












  • 22





    There were 40000 demonstrators in Munich alone. How many of those were paid? How did American companies contact and pay that many (or even a useful portion of that many) without anyone breaking the story before hand?

    – JRE
    Mar 24 at 9:55






  • 6





    An America-investigation will clear up this collusion and foreign interference.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 10:29






  • 12





    @LangLangC: It is significant regardless of how many believe it. This isn't some random schmoe spouting trash. It is a known politician in an important post spouting trash on his party's official twitter feed, and making the same (and more detailed) statement to the press.

    – JRE
    Mar 24 at 11:53







  • 5





    @pmf I haven't seen any, but assuming that there is a massive investment in ads, that would just be a sign for an information campaign. "Desinformationen" would require that the ads contain false or misleading information (which I have thus far only seen from the proponents of the reform).

    – tim
    Mar 25 at 10:42






  • 4





    I was there and didn't get paid. I gonna sue them

    – undefined
    Mar 25 at 14:43







22




22





There were 40000 demonstrators in Munich alone. How many of those were paid? How did American companies contact and pay that many (or even a useful portion of that many) without anyone breaking the story before hand?

– JRE
Mar 24 at 9:55





There were 40000 demonstrators in Munich alone. How many of those were paid? How did American companies contact and pay that many (or even a useful portion of that many) without anyone breaking the story before hand?

– JRE
Mar 24 at 9:55




6




6





An America-investigation will clear up this collusion and foreign interference.

– LangLangC
Mar 24 at 10:29





An America-investigation will clear up this collusion and foreign interference.

– LangLangC
Mar 24 at 10:29




12




12





@LangLangC: It is significant regardless of how many believe it. This isn't some random schmoe spouting trash. It is a known politician in an important post spouting trash on his party's official twitter feed, and making the same (and more detailed) statement to the press.

– JRE
Mar 24 at 11:53






@LangLangC: It is significant regardless of how many believe it. This isn't some random schmoe spouting trash. It is a known politician in an important post spouting trash on his party's official twitter feed, and making the same (and more detailed) statement to the press.

– JRE
Mar 24 at 11:53





5




5





@pmf I haven't seen any, but assuming that there is a massive investment in ads, that would just be a sign for an information campaign. "Desinformationen" would require that the ads contain false or misleading information (which I have thus far only seen from the proponents of the reform).

– tim
Mar 25 at 10:42





@pmf I haven't seen any, but assuming that there is a massive investment in ads, that would just be a sign for an information campaign. "Desinformationen" would require that the ads contain false or misleading information (which I have thus far only seen from the proponents of the reform).

– tim
Mar 25 at 10:42




4




4





I was there and didn't get paid. I gonna sue them

– undefined
Mar 25 at 14:43





I was there and didn't get paid. I gonna sue them

– undefined
Mar 25 at 14:43










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















62














N-TV has a fact check on the issue. Regarding the "so called NGO" and the offer of 450 for demonstrating:




Caspary scheint sich mit seinem Vorwurf auf eine Aktion der Digital-NGO Edri zu beziehen, über die die "Bild am Sonntag" heute folgendes schreibt: "Die internationale Bürgerrechtsorganisation Edri spendierte 'Reisestipendien' nach Brüssel und Straßburg, um den Druck auf die Parlamentarier bei der Abstimmung in direkten Gesprächen zu erhöhen. Für die ausgewählten 20 Aktivisten aus ganz Europa, darunter auch aus Deutschland, gab es bis zu 350 Euro Reisekostenerstattung, zwei Gratis-Übernachtungen sowie Workshops, in denen sie für die Gespräche instruiert wurden." Edri werde unter anderem "von Konzernen wie Twitter und Microsoft" finanziert.



Diese Reisestipendien gab es wirklich, die Kosten für die zwei Übernachtungen gibt Edri mit jeweils 50 Euro an - macht 450 Euro, wie bei Caspary. Das Geld gab es allerdings nicht "für die Demoteilnahme" und schon gar nicht für "gekaufte Demonstranten", sondern für die "Reisekosten von bis zu 350 Euro", um nach Brüssel zu kommen, wie es auf der Seite der Organisation heißt. Dort sprachen "ungefähr 20 Personen" mit Europaabgeordneten, wie das dänische Edri-Mitglied Jesper Lund auf Twitter auf Anfrage des ARD-Journalisten Dennis Horn erklärte.




Summarized, this says that the NGO "Edri" - financed among other by Twitter and Microsoft - reimbursed 20 activists for travel (350 Euro) and lodging (2x 50 Euros) to Brussels (450 Euro total, which matches the 450 Euro in the original claim) to talk with representatives.



The money was not for participating in demonstrations in Germany or elsewhere.



Now, it could of course be that there were also 450 offered to people to demonstrate in Germany, but I have found no evidence for that; it's fair to assume that Caspary misrepresented the issue.






share|improve this answer


















  • 23





    As this money was not for demonstrating at all, not 'massive', neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries, then what is the disinformation? This is quite weak language for calling out a blatant liar.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 13:46






  • 8





    Plus, his own party colleagues call his statement "insane": twitter.com/tj_tweets/status/1109486854687084544

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 70





    @LangLangC Remaining calm and choosing neutral language while maintaining the possibility of being wrong and/or missing some misunderstanding of the original source text is admirable, to be celebrated, and to be encouraged. Not derided.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 24 at 20:32






  • 6





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit I agree in principle but a false equidistant language is misrepresenting the issue as well. It is inappropriate for a case of an anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar. Why not call a duck a duck? He did this with TTIP & CETA, doubles down on this new claim with further ridiculousness: twitter.com/caspary/status/1109775776709312512 But political discussion about Caspary will be as fruitless as with him. This is about clear language. Only if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. This glove is his.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 11:00






  • 17





    @LangLangC Using emotional language like "anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar" does not support your case, it only throws your perspective into doubt, whether you are objectively correct or not. Don't confuse "clear" with "bold".

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 25 at 12:20



















10














The claimant now says his own twitter account misrepresents the issue. The truth, according to Caspary, is found in Bild.



Framed with "are demonstrators bought?", quoted by the tabloid Bild, Caspary said a slight variation of his own twitter claim:




Nun wird offensichtlich versucht, auch mit gekauften Demonstranten die Verabschiedung des Urheberrechts zu verhindern. Bis zu 450 Euro werden von einer sogenannten NGO für die Demoteilnahme geboten. Das Geld scheint zumindest teilweise von großen amerikanischen Internetkonzernen zu stammen. Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht.



Now it is obvious that attempts are being made to prevent the adoption of copyright even with demonstrators who have been bought. Up to 450 euros are offered by a so-called NGO for participating in the demonstration. The money seems to come at least partly from big American internet companies. When American corporations try to prevent laws by massively using disinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is threatened.




To this and the twitter claim, members of his own party engage in damage control and evaluate that statement:




The Social-Media-Team of @CDU_CSU_EP unfortunately stands for repeated showing of complete ignorance. You only have to look at one or the other tweet. That damages @CDU and @CSU massively. (Matthias Hauer)



I can't find any words for this insanity. No matter what opinion you have, you must always have respect for the opinions of people who think differently. @caspary @AxelVossMdEP (Thomas Jarzombek)




Again, Caspary, commenting on "fake news", went on record with:




"For us MEPs, this means being even more present than before, making connections transparent to the citizens and clearly naming fake news as such," said the CDU politician with a view to the consequences for the election campaign. (NOZ, 01.08.2018, 14:26 Uhr: CDU-Politiker Caspary: Fake News sind Gefahr für Europawahl)




Now not only his colleagues try to bury that or apologize, he himself says that original claim is "I never said that *all demonstrators were bought!"




To make one thing clear: I never said all demonstrators were bought. My statement can be found here: (link back to the original Bild-tabloid article above)




And later:




However, when organisations try to influence public opinion through dubious methods such as "financial support", they can also be criticised. (twitter: Caspary)




To which the first reaction was




"I ever said that" own party writes exactly that in their tweet. What is all this about? Who is lying now, you or your party :)? Serious question. One is lying. (twitter: Pandorya)




Take a really close look at the exact language this MEP uses. "The adoption of copyright" – as if the Eu is currently free from copyright? You may also find delight in hearing him repeat the nonsensical statements (the plural has to be used for the numerous inaccuracies and falsehoods accumulated in such a short statement) for at least a third time. In parliament:




https://twitter.com/pkNRG/status/1110485826369175553




By now we have to assume that he had the chance to fully know just how wrong that all he said is. Even when told in person he cannot accept reality.



It should be obvious that that what he "never said" he now said again, and again. What looks like his denial is a double down and triple down.



Asked for evidence he cannot provide any and chooses the whataboutism of the chewbacca defense while screaming.




That reads pretty much as answering the original question here:




Q Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?




A: No. The original claimant tries to weasel himself out of that claim. At least this is indirect admitting that the claim is just untrue.



An organisation called EDRi organised an offer for 20 people of travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. Of these 20 * 450 EUR, the money came from:




Yes. The travel support was administered by @edri (up to 350€ for travel and 100€ for accommodation = up to €450). Source of funding: 2/3 from OSF grant and 1/3 from C4C annual budget. Read more here: EDRi (twitter: Jasper Lund)




The money wasn't for any demonstrations, and not in Germany (although that part is indeed only read into Caspary's nonsense). The money was not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries. For the record: Of the twenty seats offered only 12 were taken.



This should make clear who is spreading disinformation.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This sounds like a denial of something nobody ever claimed. I think we all understand that he didn't claim that all demonstrators were bought, but that a "so called NGO" offered 450 for participating in the demonstrations (with an implication that a non-negligible amount of people accepted this offer); so to me it seems that he stands by what he said, so I'm not sure that this answers the question.

    – tim
    Mar 25 at 16:06






  • 2





    @Tim Yep. He tries to stand without legs. Things is: it's his denial! And an overly specific one I might add. He tries to have his cake and eat it too.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:09











  • 20 out 40,000+ sounds pretty "neglible" to me. That's a half of a thousandth percent at most.

    – Chris Pratt
    Mar 25 at 16:53






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt Correct. Plus the total sum of demonstrators is much higher. But I am really waiting for someone else, to compare that to the vast amounts of money all those lobbyist orgs spew out. Orgs with practices that Caspary himself calls "threatening"–– in which Caspary, Brok and Voss are/were members themselves (and now guess how they align to the current issue).

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:58






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt especially given that the pro-Article-13 lobby just invited a boatload of MEPs to a fancy dinner yesterday (the day before the vote), but that is definitely not a problem.

    – Hobbamok
    Mar 26 at 9:21


















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









62














N-TV has a fact check on the issue. Regarding the "so called NGO" and the offer of 450 for demonstrating:




Caspary scheint sich mit seinem Vorwurf auf eine Aktion der Digital-NGO Edri zu beziehen, über die die "Bild am Sonntag" heute folgendes schreibt: "Die internationale Bürgerrechtsorganisation Edri spendierte 'Reisestipendien' nach Brüssel und Straßburg, um den Druck auf die Parlamentarier bei der Abstimmung in direkten Gesprächen zu erhöhen. Für die ausgewählten 20 Aktivisten aus ganz Europa, darunter auch aus Deutschland, gab es bis zu 350 Euro Reisekostenerstattung, zwei Gratis-Übernachtungen sowie Workshops, in denen sie für die Gespräche instruiert wurden." Edri werde unter anderem "von Konzernen wie Twitter und Microsoft" finanziert.



Diese Reisestipendien gab es wirklich, die Kosten für die zwei Übernachtungen gibt Edri mit jeweils 50 Euro an - macht 450 Euro, wie bei Caspary. Das Geld gab es allerdings nicht "für die Demoteilnahme" und schon gar nicht für "gekaufte Demonstranten", sondern für die "Reisekosten von bis zu 350 Euro", um nach Brüssel zu kommen, wie es auf der Seite der Organisation heißt. Dort sprachen "ungefähr 20 Personen" mit Europaabgeordneten, wie das dänische Edri-Mitglied Jesper Lund auf Twitter auf Anfrage des ARD-Journalisten Dennis Horn erklärte.




Summarized, this says that the NGO "Edri" - financed among other by Twitter and Microsoft - reimbursed 20 activists for travel (350 Euro) and lodging (2x 50 Euros) to Brussels (450 Euro total, which matches the 450 Euro in the original claim) to talk with representatives.



The money was not for participating in demonstrations in Germany or elsewhere.



Now, it could of course be that there were also 450 offered to people to demonstrate in Germany, but I have found no evidence for that; it's fair to assume that Caspary misrepresented the issue.






share|improve this answer


















  • 23





    As this money was not for demonstrating at all, not 'massive', neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries, then what is the disinformation? This is quite weak language for calling out a blatant liar.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 13:46






  • 8





    Plus, his own party colleagues call his statement "insane": twitter.com/tj_tweets/status/1109486854687084544

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 70





    @LangLangC Remaining calm and choosing neutral language while maintaining the possibility of being wrong and/or missing some misunderstanding of the original source text is admirable, to be celebrated, and to be encouraged. Not derided.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 24 at 20:32






  • 6





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit I agree in principle but a false equidistant language is misrepresenting the issue as well. It is inappropriate for a case of an anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar. Why not call a duck a duck? He did this with TTIP & CETA, doubles down on this new claim with further ridiculousness: twitter.com/caspary/status/1109775776709312512 But political discussion about Caspary will be as fruitless as with him. This is about clear language. Only if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. This glove is his.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 11:00






  • 17





    @LangLangC Using emotional language like "anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar" does not support your case, it only throws your perspective into doubt, whether you are objectively correct or not. Don't confuse "clear" with "bold".

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 25 at 12:20
















62














N-TV has a fact check on the issue. Regarding the "so called NGO" and the offer of 450 for demonstrating:




Caspary scheint sich mit seinem Vorwurf auf eine Aktion der Digital-NGO Edri zu beziehen, über die die "Bild am Sonntag" heute folgendes schreibt: "Die internationale Bürgerrechtsorganisation Edri spendierte 'Reisestipendien' nach Brüssel und Straßburg, um den Druck auf die Parlamentarier bei der Abstimmung in direkten Gesprächen zu erhöhen. Für die ausgewählten 20 Aktivisten aus ganz Europa, darunter auch aus Deutschland, gab es bis zu 350 Euro Reisekostenerstattung, zwei Gratis-Übernachtungen sowie Workshops, in denen sie für die Gespräche instruiert wurden." Edri werde unter anderem "von Konzernen wie Twitter und Microsoft" finanziert.



Diese Reisestipendien gab es wirklich, die Kosten für die zwei Übernachtungen gibt Edri mit jeweils 50 Euro an - macht 450 Euro, wie bei Caspary. Das Geld gab es allerdings nicht "für die Demoteilnahme" und schon gar nicht für "gekaufte Demonstranten", sondern für die "Reisekosten von bis zu 350 Euro", um nach Brüssel zu kommen, wie es auf der Seite der Organisation heißt. Dort sprachen "ungefähr 20 Personen" mit Europaabgeordneten, wie das dänische Edri-Mitglied Jesper Lund auf Twitter auf Anfrage des ARD-Journalisten Dennis Horn erklärte.




Summarized, this says that the NGO "Edri" - financed among other by Twitter and Microsoft - reimbursed 20 activists for travel (350 Euro) and lodging (2x 50 Euros) to Brussels (450 Euro total, which matches the 450 Euro in the original claim) to talk with representatives.



The money was not for participating in demonstrations in Germany or elsewhere.



Now, it could of course be that there were also 450 offered to people to demonstrate in Germany, but I have found no evidence for that; it's fair to assume that Caspary misrepresented the issue.






share|improve this answer


















  • 23





    As this money was not for demonstrating at all, not 'massive', neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries, then what is the disinformation? This is quite weak language for calling out a blatant liar.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 13:46






  • 8





    Plus, his own party colleagues call his statement "insane": twitter.com/tj_tweets/status/1109486854687084544

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 70





    @LangLangC Remaining calm and choosing neutral language while maintaining the possibility of being wrong and/or missing some misunderstanding of the original source text is admirable, to be celebrated, and to be encouraged. Not derided.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 24 at 20:32






  • 6





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit I agree in principle but a false equidistant language is misrepresenting the issue as well. It is inappropriate for a case of an anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar. Why not call a duck a duck? He did this with TTIP & CETA, doubles down on this new claim with further ridiculousness: twitter.com/caspary/status/1109775776709312512 But political discussion about Caspary will be as fruitless as with him. This is about clear language. Only if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. This glove is his.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 11:00






  • 17





    @LangLangC Using emotional language like "anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar" does not support your case, it only throws your perspective into doubt, whether you are objectively correct or not. Don't confuse "clear" with "bold".

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 25 at 12:20














62












62








62







N-TV has a fact check on the issue. Regarding the "so called NGO" and the offer of 450 for demonstrating:




Caspary scheint sich mit seinem Vorwurf auf eine Aktion der Digital-NGO Edri zu beziehen, über die die "Bild am Sonntag" heute folgendes schreibt: "Die internationale Bürgerrechtsorganisation Edri spendierte 'Reisestipendien' nach Brüssel und Straßburg, um den Druck auf die Parlamentarier bei der Abstimmung in direkten Gesprächen zu erhöhen. Für die ausgewählten 20 Aktivisten aus ganz Europa, darunter auch aus Deutschland, gab es bis zu 350 Euro Reisekostenerstattung, zwei Gratis-Übernachtungen sowie Workshops, in denen sie für die Gespräche instruiert wurden." Edri werde unter anderem "von Konzernen wie Twitter und Microsoft" finanziert.



Diese Reisestipendien gab es wirklich, die Kosten für die zwei Übernachtungen gibt Edri mit jeweils 50 Euro an - macht 450 Euro, wie bei Caspary. Das Geld gab es allerdings nicht "für die Demoteilnahme" und schon gar nicht für "gekaufte Demonstranten", sondern für die "Reisekosten von bis zu 350 Euro", um nach Brüssel zu kommen, wie es auf der Seite der Organisation heißt. Dort sprachen "ungefähr 20 Personen" mit Europaabgeordneten, wie das dänische Edri-Mitglied Jesper Lund auf Twitter auf Anfrage des ARD-Journalisten Dennis Horn erklärte.




Summarized, this says that the NGO "Edri" - financed among other by Twitter and Microsoft - reimbursed 20 activists for travel (350 Euro) and lodging (2x 50 Euros) to Brussels (450 Euro total, which matches the 450 Euro in the original claim) to talk with representatives.



The money was not for participating in demonstrations in Germany or elsewhere.



Now, it could of course be that there were also 450 offered to people to demonstrate in Germany, but I have found no evidence for that; it's fair to assume that Caspary misrepresented the issue.






share|improve this answer













N-TV has a fact check on the issue. Regarding the "so called NGO" and the offer of 450 for demonstrating:




Caspary scheint sich mit seinem Vorwurf auf eine Aktion der Digital-NGO Edri zu beziehen, über die die "Bild am Sonntag" heute folgendes schreibt: "Die internationale Bürgerrechtsorganisation Edri spendierte 'Reisestipendien' nach Brüssel und Straßburg, um den Druck auf die Parlamentarier bei der Abstimmung in direkten Gesprächen zu erhöhen. Für die ausgewählten 20 Aktivisten aus ganz Europa, darunter auch aus Deutschland, gab es bis zu 350 Euro Reisekostenerstattung, zwei Gratis-Übernachtungen sowie Workshops, in denen sie für die Gespräche instruiert wurden." Edri werde unter anderem "von Konzernen wie Twitter und Microsoft" finanziert.



Diese Reisestipendien gab es wirklich, die Kosten für die zwei Übernachtungen gibt Edri mit jeweils 50 Euro an - macht 450 Euro, wie bei Caspary. Das Geld gab es allerdings nicht "für die Demoteilnahme" und schon gar nicht für "gekaufte Demonstranten", sondern für die "Reisekosten von bis zu 350 Euro", um nach Brüssel zu kommen, wie es auf der Seite der Organisation heißt. Dort sprachen "ungefähr 20 Personen" mit Europaabgeordneten, wie das dänische Edri-Mitglied Jesper Lund auf Twitter auf Anfrage des ARD-Journalisten Dennis Horn erklärte.




Summarized, this says that the NGO "Edri" - financed among other by Twitter and Microsoft - reimbursed 20 activists for travel (350 Euro) and lodging (2x 50 Euros) to Brussels (450 Euro total, which matches the 450 Euro in the original claim) to talk with representatives.



The money was not for participating in demonstrations in Germany or elsewhere.



Now, it could of course be that there were also 450 offered to people to demonstrate in Germany, but I have found no evidence for that; it's fair to assume that Caspary misrepresented the issue.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Mar 24 at 13:17









timtim

38.8k13147148




38.8k13147148







  • 23





    As this money was not for demonstrating at all, not 'massive', neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries, then what is the disinformation? This is quite weak language for calling out a blatant liar.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 13:46






  • 8





    Plus, his own party colleagues call his statement "insane": twitter.com/tj_tweets/status/1109486854687084544

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 70





    @LangLangC Remaining calm and choosing neutral language while maintaining the possibility of being wrong and/or missing some misunderstanding of the original source text is admirable, to be celebrated, and to be encouraged. Not derided.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 24 at 20:32






  • 6





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit I agree in principle but a false equidistant language is misrepresenting the issue as well. It is inappropriate for a case of an anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar. Why not call a duck a duck? He did this with TTIP & CETA, doubles down on this new claim with further ridiculousness: twitter.com/caspary/status/1109775776709312512 But political discussion about Caspary will be as fruitless as with him. This is about clear language. Only if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. This glove is his.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 11:00






  • 17





    @LangLangC Using emotional language like "anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar" does not support your case, it only throws your perspective into doubt, whether you are objectively correct or not. Don't confuse "clear" with "bold".

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 25 at 12:20













  • 23





    As this money was not for demonstrating at all, not 'massive', neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries, then what is the disinformation? This is quite weak language for calling out a blatant liar.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 13:46






  • 8





    Plus, his own party colleagues call his statement "insane": twitter.com/tj_tweets/status/1109486854687084544

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 70





    @LangLangC Remaining calm and choosing neutral language while maintaining the possibility of being wrong and/or missing some misunderstanding of the original source text is admirable, to be celebrated, and to be encouraged. Not derided.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 24 at 20:32






  • 6





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit I agree in principle but a false equidistant language is misrepresenting the issue as well. It is inappropriate for a case of an anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar. Why not call a duck a duck? He did this with TTIP & CETA, doubles down on this new claim with further ridiculousness: twitter.com/caspary/status/1109775776709312512 But political discussion about Caspary will be as fruitless as with him. This is about clear language. Only if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. This glove is his.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 11:00






  • 17





    @LangLangC Using emotional language like "anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar" does not support your case, it only throws your perspective into doubt, whether you are objectively correct or not. Don't confuse "clear" with "bold".

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Mar 25 at 12:20








23




23





As this money was not for demonstrating at all, not 'massive', neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries, then what is the disinformation? This is quite weak language for calling out a blatant liar.

– LangLangC
Mar 24 at 13:46





As this money was not for demonstrating at all, not 'massive', neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries, then what is the disinformation? This is quite weak language for calling out a blatant liar.

– LangLangC
Mar 24 at 13:46




8




8





Plus, his own party colleagues call his statement "insane": twitter.com/tj_tweets/status/1109486854687084544

– LangLangC
Mar 24 at 17:00





Plus, his own party colleagues call his statement "insane": twitter.com/tj_tweets/status/1109486854687084544

– LangLangC
Mar 24 at 17:00




70




70





@LangLangC Remaining calm and choosing neutral language while maintaining the possibility of being wrong and/or missing some misunderstanding of the original source text is admirable, to be celebrated, and to be encouraged. Not derided.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 24 at 20:32





@LangLangC Remaining calm and choosing neutral language while maintaining the possibility of being wrong and/or missing some misunderstanding of the original source text is admirable, to be celebrated, and to be encouraged. Not derided.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 24 at 20:32




6




6





@LightnessRacesinOrbit I agree in principle but a false equidistant language is misrepresenting the issue as well. It is inappropriate for a case of an anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar. Why not call a duck a duck? He did this with TTIP & CETA, doubles down on this new claim with further ridiculousness: twitter.com/caspary/status/1109775776709312512 But political discussion about Caspary will be as fruitless as with him. This is about clear language. Only if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. This glove is his.

– LangLangC
Mar 25 at 11:00





@LightnessRacesinOrbit I agree in principle but a false equidistant language is misrepresenting the issue as well. It is inappropriate for a case of an anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar. Why not call a duck a duck? He did this with TTIP & CETA, doubles down on this new claim with further ridiculousness: twitter.com/caspary/status/1109775776709312512 But political discussion about Caspary will be as fruitless as with him. This is about clear language. Only if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. This glove is his.

– LangLangC
Mar 25 at 11:00




17




17





@LangLangC Using emotional language like "anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar" does not support your case, it only throws your perspective into doubt, whether you are objectively correct or not. Don't confuse "clear" with "bold".

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 25 at 12:20






@LangLangC Using emotional language like "anti-democratic habitual 'misrepresenter' and thus liar" does not support your case, it only throws your perspective into doubt, whether you are objectively correct or not. Don't confuse "clear" with "bold".

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 25 at 12:20












10














The claimant now says his own twitter account misrepresents the issue. The truth, according to Caspary, is found in Bild.



Framed with "are demonstrators bought?", quoted by the tabloid Bild, Caspary said a slight variation of his own twitter claim:




Nun wird offensichtlich versucht, auch mit gekauften Demonstranten die Verabschiedung des Urheberrechts zu verhindern. Bis zu 450 Euro werden von einer sogenannten NGO für die Demoteilnahme geboten. Das Geld scheint zumindest teilweise von großen amerikanischen Internetkonzernen zu stammen. Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht.



Now it is obvious that attempts are being made to prevent the adoption of copyright even with demonstrators who have been bought. Up to 450 euros are offered by a so-called NGO for participating in the demonstration. The money seems to come at least partly from big American internet companies. When American corporations try to prevent laws by massively using disinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is threatened.




To this and the twitter claim, members of his own party engage in damage control and evaluate that statement:




The Social-Media-Team of @CDU_CSU_EP unfortunately stands for repeated showing of complete ignorance. You only have to look at one or the other tweet. That damages @CDU and @CSU massively. (Matthias Hauer)



I can't find any words for this insanity. No matter what opinion you have, you must always have respect for the opinions of people who think differently. @caspary @AxelVossMdEP (Thomas Jarzombek)




Again, Caspary, commenting on "fake news", went on record with:




"For us MEPs, this means being even more present than before, making connections transparent to the citizens and clearly naming fake news as such," said the CDU politician with a view to the consequences for the election campaign. (NOZ, 01.08.2018, 14:26 Uhr: CDU-Politiker Caspary: Fake News sind Gefahr für Europawahl)




Now not only his colleagues try to bury that or apologize, he himself says that original claim is "I never said that *all demonstrators were bought!"




To make one thing clear: I never said all demonstrators were bought. My statement can be found here: (link back to the original Bild-tabloid article above)




And later:




However, when organisations try to influence public opinion through dubious methods such as "financial support", they can also be criticised. (twitter: Caspary)




To which the first reaction was




"I ever said that" own party writes exactly that in their tweet. What is all this about? Who is lying now, you or your party :)? Serious question. One is lying. (twitter: Pandorya)




Take a really close look at the exact language this MEP uses. "The adoption of copyright" – as if the Eu is currently free from copyright? You may also find delight in hearing him repeat the nonsensical statements (the plural has to be used for the numerous inaccuracies and falsehoods accumulated in such a short statement) for at least a third time. In parliament:




https://twitter.com/pkNRG/status/1110485826369175553




By now we have to assume that he had the chance to fully know just how wrong that all he said is. Even when told in person he cannot accept reality.



It should be obvious that that what he "never said" he now said again, and again. What looks like his denial is a double down and triple down.



Asked for evidence he cannot provide any and chooses the whataboutism of the chewbacca defense while screaming.




That reads pretty much as answering the original question here:




Q Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?




A: No. The original claimant tries to weasel himself out of that claim. At least this is indirect admitting that the claim is just untrue.



An organisation called EDRi organised an offer for 20 people of travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. Of these 20 * 450 EUR, the money came from:




Yes. The travel support was administered by @edri (up to 350€ for travel and 100€ for accommodation = up to €450). Source of funding: 2/3 from OSF grant and 1/3 from C4C annual budget. Read more here: EDRi (twitter: Jasper Lund)




The money wasn't for any demonstrations, and not in Germany (although that part is indeed only read into Caspary's nonsense). The money was not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries. For the record: Of the twenty seats offered only 12 were taken.



This should make clear who is spreading disinformation.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This sounds like a denial of something nobody ever claimed. I think we all understand that he didn't claim that all demonstrators were bought, but that a "so called NGO" offered 450 for participating in the demonstrations (with an implication that a non-negligible amount of people accepted this offer); so to me it seems that he stands by what he said, so I'm not sure that this answers the question.

    – tim
    Mar 25 at 16:06






  • 2





    @Tim Yep. He tries to stand without legs. Things is: it's his denial! And an overly specific one I might add. He tries to have his cake and eat it too.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:09











  • 20 out 40,000+ sounds pretty "neglible" to me. That's a half of a thousandth percent at most.

    – Chris Pratt
    Mar 25 at 16:53






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt Correct. Plus the total sum of demonstrators is much higher. But I am really waiting for someone else, to compare that to the vast amounts of money all those lobbyist orgs spew out. Orgs with practices that Caspary himself calls "threatening"–– in which Caspary, Brok and Voss are/were members themselves (and now guess how they align to the current issue).

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:58






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt especially given that the pro-Article-13 lobby just invited a boatload of MEPs to a fancy dinner yesterday (the day before the vote), but that is definitely not a problem.

    – Hobbamok
    Mar 26 at 9:21















10














The claimant now says his own twitter account misrepresents the issue. The truth, according to Caspary, is found in Bild.



Framed with "are demonstrators bought?", quoted by the tabloid Bild, Caspary said a slight variation of his own twitter claim:




Nun wird offensichtlich versucht, auch mit gekauften Demonstranten die Verabschiedung des Urheberrechts zu verhindern. Bis zu 450 Euro werden von einer sogenannten NGO für die Demoteilnahme geboten. Das Geld scheint zumindest teilweise von großen amerikanischen Internetkonzernen zu stammen. Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht.



Now it is obvious that attempts are being made to prevent the adoption of copyright even with demonstrators who have been bought. Up to 450 euros are offered by a so-called NGO for participating in the demonstration. The money seems to come at least partly from big American internet companies. When American corporations try to prevent laws by massively using disinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is threatened.




To this and the twitter claim, members of his own party engage in damage control and evaluate that statement:




The Social-Media-Team of @CDU_CSU_EP unfortunately stands for repeated showing of complete ignorance. You only have to look at one or the other tweet. That damages @CDU and @CSU massively. (Matthias Hauer)



I can't find any words for this insanity. No matter what opinion you have, you must always have respect for the opinions of people who think differently. @caspary @AxelVossMdEP (Thomas Jarzombek)




Again, Caspary, commenting on "fake news", went on record with:




"For us MEPs, this means being even more present than before, making connections transparent to the citizens and clearly naming fake news as such," said the CDU politician with a view to the consequences for the election campaign. (NOZ, 01.08.2018, 14:26 Uhr: CDU-Politiker Caspary: Fake News sind Gefahr für Europawahl)




Now not only his colleagues try to bury that or apologize, he himself says that original claim is "I never said that *all demonstrators were bought!"




To make one thing clear: I never said all demonstrators were bought. My statement can be found here: (link back to the original Bild-tabloid article above)




And later:




However, when organisations try to influence public opinion through dubious methods such as "financial support", they can also be criticised. (twitter: Caspary)




To which the first reaction was




"I ever said that" own party writes exactly that in their tweet. What is all this about? Who is lying now, you or your party :)? Serious question. One is lying. (twitter: Pandorya)




Take a really close look at the exact language this MEP uses. "The adoption of copyright" – as if the Eu is currently free from copyright? You may also find delight in hearing him repeat the nonsensical statements (the plural has to be used for the numerous inaccuracies and falsehoods accumulated in such a short statement) for at least a third time. In parliament:




https://twitter.com/pkNRG/status/1110485826369175553




By now we have to assume that he had the chance to fully know just how wrong that all he said is. Even when told in person he cannot accept reality.



It should be obvious that that what he "never said" he now said again, and again. What looks like his denial is a double down and triple down.



Asked for evidence he cannot provide any and chooses the whataboutism of the chewbacca defense while screaming.




That reads pretty much as answering the original question here:




Q Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?




A: No. The original claimant tries to weasel himself out of that claim. At least this is indirect admitting that the claim is just untrue.



An organisation called EDRi organised an offer for 20 people of travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. Of these 20 * 450 EUR, the money came from:




Yes. The travel support was administered by @edri (up to 350€ for travel and 100€ for accommodation = up to €450). Source of funding: 2/3 from OSF grant and 1/3 from C4C annual budget. Read more here: EDRi (twitter: Jasper Lund)




The money wasn't for any demonstrations, and not in Germany (although that part is indeed only read into Caspary's nonsense). The money was not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries. For the record: Of the twenty seats offered only 12 were taken.



This should make clear who is spreading disinformation.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This sounds like a denial of something nobody ever claimed. I think we all understand that he didn't claim that all demonstrators were bought, but that a "so called NGO" offered 450 for participating in the demonstrations (with an implication that a non-negligible amount of people accepted this offer); so to me it seems that he stands by what he said, so I'm not sure that this answers the question.

    – tim
    Mar 25 at 16:06






  • 2





    @Tim Yep. He tries to stand without legs. Things is: it's his denial! And an overly specific one I might add. He tries to have his cake and eat it too.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:09











  • 20 out 40,000+ sounds pretty "neglible" to me. That's a half of a thousandth percent at most.

    – Chris Pratt
    Mar 25 at 16:53






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt Correct. Plus the total sum of demonstrators is much higher. But I am really waiting for someone else, to compare that to the vast amounts of money all those lobbyist orgs spew out. Orgs with practices that Caspary himself calls "threatening"–– in which Caspary, Brok and Voss are/were members themselves (and now guess how they align to the current issue).

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:58






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt especially given that the pro-Article-13 lobby just invited a boatload of MEPs to a fancy dinner yesterday (the day before the vote), but that is definitely not a problem.

    – Hobbamok
    Mar 26 at 9:21













10












10








10







The claimant now says his own twitter account misrepresents the issue. The truth, according to Caspary, is found in Bild.



Framed with "are demonstrators bought?", quoted by the tabloid Bild, Caspary said a slight variation of his own twitter claim:




Nun wird offensichtlich versucht, auch mit gekauften Demonstranten die Verabschiedung des Urheberrechts zu verhindern. Bis zu 450 Euro werden von einer sogenannten NGO für die Demoteilnahme geboten. Das Geld scheint zumindest teilweise von großen amerikanischen Internetkonzernen zu stammen. Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht.



Now it is obvious that attempts are being made to prevent the adoption of copyright even with demonstrators who have been bought. Up to 450 euros are offered by a so-called NGO for participating in the demonstration. The money seems to come at least partly from big American internet companies. When American corporations try to prevent laws by massively using disinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is threatened.




To this and the twitter claim, members of his own party engage in damage control and evaluate that statement:




The Social-Media-Team of @CDU_CSU_EP unfortunately stands for repeated showing of complete ignorance. You only have to look at one or the other tweet. That damages @CDU and @CSU massively. (Matthias Hauer)



I can't find any words for this insanity. No matter what opinion you have, you must always have respect for the opinions of people who think differently. @caspary @AxelVossMdEP (Thomas Jarzombek)




Again, Caspary, commenting on "fake news", went on record with:




"For us MEPs, this means being even more present than before, making connections transparent to the citizens and clearly naming fake news as such," said the CDU politician with a view to the consequences for the election campaign. (NOZ, 01.08.2018, 14:26 Uhr: CDU-Politiker Caspary: Fake News sind Gefahr für Europawahl)




Now not only his colleagues try to bury that or apologize, he himself says that original claim is "I never said that *all demonstrators were bought!"




To make one thing clear: I never said all demonstrators were bought. My statement can be found here: (link back to the original Bild-tabloid article above)




And later:




However, when organisations try to influence public opinion through dubious methods such as "financial support", they can also be criticised. (twitter: Caspary)




To which the first reaction was




"I ever said that" own party writes exactly that in their tweet. What is all this about? Who is lying now, you or your party :)? Serious question. One is lying. (twitter: Pandorya)




Take a really close look at the exact language this MEP uses. "The adoption of copyright" – as if the Eu is currently free from copyright? You may also find delight in hearing him repeat the nonsensical statements (the plural has to be used for the numerous inaccuracies and falsehoods accumulated in such a short statement) for at least a third time. In parliament:




https://twitter.com/pkNRG/status/1110485826369175553




By now we have to assume that he had the chance to fully know just how wrong that all he said is. Even when told in person he cannot accept reality.



It should be obvious that that what he "never said" he now said again, and again. What looks like his denial is a double down and triple down.



Asked for evidence he cannot provide any and chooses the whataboutism of the chewbacca defense while screaming.




That reads pretty much as answering the original question here:




Q Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?




A: No. The original claimant tries to weasel himself out of that claim. At least this is indirect admitting that the claim is just untrue.



An organisation called EDRi organised an offer for 20 people of travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. Of these 20 * 450 EUR, the money came from:




Yes. The travel support was administered by @edri (up to 350€ for travel and 100€ for accommodation = up to €450). Source of funding: 2/3 from OSF grant and 1/3 from C4C annual budget. Read more here: EDRi (twitter: Jasper Lund)




The money wasn't for any demonstrations, and not in Germany (although that part is indeed only read into Caspary's nonsense). The money was not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries. For the record: Of the twenty seats offered only 12 were taken.



This should make clear who is spreading disinformation.






share|improve this answer















The claimant now says his own twitter account misrepresents the issue. The truth, according to Caspary, is found in Bild.



Framed with "are demonstrators bought?", quoted by the tabloid Bild, Caspary said a slight variation of his own twitter claim:




Nun wird offensichtlich versucht, auch mit gekauften Demonstranten die Verabschiedung des Urheberrechts zu verhindern. Bis zu 450 Euro werden von einer sogenannten NGO für die Demoteilnahme geboten. Das Geld scheint zumindest teilweise von großen amerikanischen Internetkonzernen zu stammen. Wenn amerikanische Konzerne mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen und gekauften Demonstranten versuchen, Gesetze zu verhindern, ist unsere Demokratie bedroht.



Now it is obvious that attempts are being made to prevent the adoption of copyright even with demonstrators who have been bought. Up to 450 euros are offered by a so-called NGO for participating in the demonstration. The money seems to come at least partly from big American internet companies. When American corporations try to prevent laws by massively using disinformation and bought demonstrators, our democracy is threatened.




To this and the twitter claim, members of his own party engage in damage control and evaluate that statement:




The Social-Media-Team of @CDU_CSU_EP unfortunately stands for repeated showing of complete ignorance. You only have to look at one or the other tweet. That damages @CDU and @CSU massively. (Matthias Hauer)



I can't find any words for this insanity. No matter what opinion you have, you must always have respect for the opinions of people who think differently. @caspary @AxelVossMdEP (Thomas Jarzombek)




Again, Caspary, commenting on "fake news", went on record with:




"For us MEPs, this means being even more present than before, making connections transparent to the citizens and clearly naming fake news as such," said the CDU politician with a view to the consequences for the election campaign. (NOZ, 01.08.2018, 14:26 Uhr: CDU-Politiker Caspary: Fake News sind Gefahr für Europawahl)




Now not only his colleagues try to bury that or apologize, he himself says that original claim is "I never said that *all demonstrators were bought!"




To make one thing clear: I never said all demonstrators were bought. My statement can be found here: (link back to the original Bild-tabloid article above)




And later:




However, when organisations try to influence public opinion through dubious methods such as "financial support", they can also be criticised. (twitter: Caspary)




To which the first reaction was




"I ever said that" own party writes exactly that in their tweet. What is all this about? Who is lying now, you or your party :)? Serious question. One is lying. (twitter: Pandorya)




Take a really close look at the exact language this MEP uses. "The adoption of copyright" – as if the Eu is currently free from copyright? You may also find delight in hearing him repeat the nonsensical statements (the plural has to be used for the numerous inaccuracies and falsehoods accumulated in such a short statement) for at least a third time. In parliament:




https://twitter.com/pkNRG/status/1110485826369175553




By now we have to assume that he had the chance to fully know just how wrong that all he said is. Even when told in person he cannot accept reality.



It should be obvious that that what he "never said" he now said again, and again. What looks like his denial is a double down and triple down.



Asked for evidence he cannot provide any and chooses the whataboutism of the chewbacca defense while screaming.




That reads pretty much as answering the original question here:




Q Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?




A: No. The original claimant tries to weasel himself out of that claim. At least this is indirect admitting that the claim is just untrue.



An organisation called EDRi organised an offer for 20 people of travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. Of these 20 * 450 EUR, the money came from:




Yes. The travel support was administered by @edri (up to 350€ for travel and 100€ for accommodation = up to €450). Source of funding: 2/3 from OSF grant and 1/3 from C4C annual budget. Read more here: EDRi (twitter: Jasper Lund)




The money wasn't for any demonstrations, and not in Germany (although that part is indeed only read into Caspary's nonsense). The money was not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries. For the record: Of the twenty seats offered only 12 were taken.



This should make clear who is spreading disinformation.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 29 at 23:56

























answered Mar 25 at 15:56









LangLangCLangLangC

17.7k47287




17.7k47287







  • 1





    This sounds like a denial of something nobody ever claimed. I think we all understand that he didn't claim that all demonstrators were bought, but that a "so called NGO" offered 450 for participating in the demonstrations (with an implication that a non-negligible amount of people accepted this offer); so to me it seems that he stands by what he said, so I'm not sure that this answers the question.

    – tim
    Mar 25 at 16:06






  • 2





    @Tim Yep. He tries to stand without legs. Things is: it's his denial! And an overly specific one I might add. He tries to have his cake and eat it too.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:09











  • 20 out 40,000+ sounds pretty "neglible" to me. That's a half of a thousandth percent at most.

    – Chris Pratt
    Mar 25 at 16:53






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt Correct. Plus the total sum of demonstrators is much higher. But I am really waiting for someone else, to compare that to the vast amounts of money all those lobbyist orgs spew out. Orgs with practices that Caspary himself calls "threatening"–– in which Caspary, Brok and Voss are/were members themselves (and now guess how they align to the current issue).

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:58






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt especially given that the pro-Article-13 lobby just invited a boatload of MEPs to a fancy dinner yesterday (the day before the vote), but that is definitely not a problem.

    – Hobbamok
    Mar 26 at 9:21












  • 1





    This sounds like a denial of something nobody ever claimed. I think we all understand that he didn't claim that all demonstrators were bought, but that a "so called NGO" offered 450 for participating in the demonstrations (with an implication that a non-negligible amount of people accepted this offer); so to me it seems that he stands by what he said, so I'm not sure that this answers the question.

    – tim
    Mar 25 at 16:06






  • 2





    @Tim Yep. He tries to stand without legs. Things is: it's his denial! And an overly specific one I might add. He tries to have his cake and eat it too.

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:09











  • 20 out 40,000+ sounds pretty "neglible" to me. That's a half of a thousandth percent at most.

    – Chris Pratt
    Mar 25 at 16:53






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt Correct. Plus the total sum of demonstrators is much higher. But I am really waiting for someone else, to compare that to the vast amounts of money all those lobbyist orgs spew out. Orgs with practices that Caspary himself calls "threatening"–– in which Caspary, Brok and Voss are/were members themselves (and now guess how they align to the current issue).

    – LangLangC
    Mar 25 at 16:58






  • 2





    @ChrisPratt especially given that the pro-Article-13 lobby just invited a boatload of MEPs to a fancy dinner yesterday (the day before the vote), but that is definitely not a problem.

    – Hobbamok
    Mar 26 at 9:21







1




1





This sounds like a denial of something nobody ever claimed. I think we all understand that he didn't claim that all demonstrators were bought, but that a "so called NGO" offered 450 for participating in the demonstrations (with an implication that a non-negligible amount of people accepted this offer); so to me it seems that he stands by what he said, so I'm not sure that this answers the question.

– tim
Mar 25 at 16:06





This sounds like a denial of something nobody ever claimed. I think we all understand that he didn't claim that all demonstrators were bought, but that a "so called NGO" offered 450 for participating in the demonstrations (with an implication that a non-negligible amount of people accepted this offer); so to me it seems that he stands by what he said, so I'm not sure that this answers the question.

– tim
Mar 25 at 16:06




2




2





@Tim Yep. He tries to stand without legs. Things is: it's his denial! And an overly specific one I might add. He tries to have his cake and eat it too.

– LangLangC
Mar 25 at 16:09





@Tim Yep. He tries to stand without legs. Things is: it's his denial! And an overly specific one I might add. He tries to have his cake and eat it too.

– LangLangC
Mar 25 at 16:09













20 out 40,000+ sounds pretty "neglible" to me. That's a half of a thousandth percent at most.

– Chris Pratt
Mar 25 at 16:53





20 out 40,000+ sounds pretty "neglible" to me. That's a half of a thousandth percent at most.

– Chris Pratt
Mar 25 at 16:53




2




2





@ChrisPratt Correct. Plus the total sum of demonstrators is much higher. But I am really waiting for someone else, to compare that to the vast amounts of money all those lobbyist orgs spew out. Orgs with practices that Caspary himself calls "threatening"–– in which Caspary, Brok and Voss are/were members themselves (and now guess how they align to the current issue).

– LangLangC
Mar 25 at 16:58





@ChrisPratt Correct. Plus the total sum of demonstrators is much higher. But I am really waiting for someone else, to compare that to the vast amounts of money all those lobbyist orgs spew out. Orgs with practices that Caspary himself calls "threatening"–– in which Caspary, Brok and Voss are/were members themselves (and now guess how they align to the current issue).

– LangLangC
Mar 25 at 16:58




2




2





@ChrisPratt especially given that the pro-Article-13 lobby just invited a boatload of MEPs to a fancy dinner yesterday (the day before the vote), but that is definitely not a problem.

– Hobbamok
Mar 26 at 9:21





@ChrisPratt especially given that the pro-Article-13 lobby just invited a boatload of MEPs to a fancy dinner yesterday (the day before the vote), but that is definitely not a problem.

– Hobbamok
Mar 26 at 9:21



Popular posts from this blog

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Bunad

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum