Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDid 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

How do we know the LHC results are robust?

Title page not generated

If a blackhole is created from light, can this blackhole then move at speed of light?

What exact does MIB represent in SNMP? How is it different from OID?

How to subset dataframe based on a "not equal to" criteria applied to a large number of columns?

What's the best way to handle refactoring a big file?

Hindi speaking tourist to UK from India

Complex fractions

How to safely derail a train during transit?

Science fiction short story involving a paper written by a schizophrenic

How to make a software documentation "officially" citable?

Trouble understanding the speech of overseas colleagues

How to write the block matrix in LaTex?

How to get regions to plot as graphics

How can I quit an app using Terminal?

My Curious Music Box

At which OSI layer a user-generated data resides?

Is HostGator storing my password in plaintext?

Why do airplanes bank sharply to the right after air-to-air refueling?

Grabbing quick drinks

What benefits would be gained by using human laborers instead of drones in deep sea mining?

How long to clear the 'suck zone' of a turbofan after start is initiated?

Indicator light circuit

Return the Closest Prime Number



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



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDid 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










46















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



















  • 20





    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






  • 5





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

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 10:29






  • 10





    @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















46















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



















  • 20





    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






  • 5





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

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 10:29






  • 10





    @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













46












46








46


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

15.7k46580




15.7k46580










asked Mar 24 at 8:11









timtim

38.6k13147147




38.6k13147147







  • 20





    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






  • 5





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

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 10:29






  • 10





    @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












  • 20





    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






  • 5





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

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 10:29






  • 10





    @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







20




20





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




5




5





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




10




10





@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


















59














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


















  • 22





    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






  • 6





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

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 67





    @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






  • 15





    @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



















9














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)





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 for 20 people travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. These 20 * 450 EUR 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 for not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries.



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









59














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


















  • 22





    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






  • 6





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

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 67





    @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






  • 15





    @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
















59














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


















  • 22





    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






  • 6





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

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 67





    @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






  • 15





    @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














59












59








59







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

38.6k13147147




38.6k13147147







  • 22





    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






  • 6





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

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 67





    @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






  • 15





    @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













  • 22





    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






  • 6





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

    – LangLangC
    Mar 24 at 17:00






  • 67





    @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






  • 15





    @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








22




22





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




6




6





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




67




67





@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




15




15





@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












9














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)





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 for 20 people travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. These 20 * 450 EUR 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 for not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries.



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















9














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)





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 for 20 people travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. These 20 * 450 EUR 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 for not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries.



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













9












9








9







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)





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 for 20 people travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. These 20 * 450 EUR 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 for not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries.



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)





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 for 20 people travel reimbursements to Brussels, to talk directly to MEPs. These 20 * 450 EUR 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 for not 'massive' either, neither in sum nor in number of beneficiaries.



This should make clear who is spreading disinformation.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 25 at 16:07

























answered Mar 25 at 15:56









LangLangCLangLangC

15.7k46580




15.7k46580







  • 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

Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?