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

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?

[There were 40000 demonstrators in Munich alone.](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/demo-muenchen-urheberrecht-1.4380419) 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 '19 at 09:55
An America-investigation will clear up this collusion and foreign interference. — LangLаngС, Mar 24 '19 at 10:29
If we look at https://twitter.com/KRABAT44/status/1109510890234224640 then I wonder how many people actually believe the claim from the Q? (This doesn't affect notability that much) — LangLаngС, Mar 24 '19 at 10:51
@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 '19 at 11:53
@LangLangC: The thing you linked to is more in the way of a rebuttal. It shows the logos and names of companies that were represented at or contributed to a party convention of the CDU. It's basically saying "You (CDU) accuse us of taking money? Look who has been filling **your (CDU)** pockets." — JRE, Mar 24 '19 at 11:58
@JRE Since he is a politician I explicitly do not doubt notability for SkepticsSE. But as an MEP he is precisely *not* "well known", as those politicians are usually recruited from the pool of unusables and incompetents that need a post nonetheless. Therefore I think demonstrating that there are some people believing this dreck would be interesting, as the claim is evidently utterly ridiculous, or like you called it: "trash". — LangLаngС, Mar 24 '19 at 12:46
He is certainly well known among the opponents of article 13, since he has been promoting it. — JRE, Mar 24 '19 at 12:53
the CDU/CSU is in this story a lying lump of fraud and I would not trust anything any of their members say. In the coalition document, they have signed that there would be no push for anything like Article 13, yet it is one of their MPs, Axel Voss, who initiated and pushed the whole thing in the European parliament, who is known for lying or misrepresenting just about anything on the issue — Hobbamok, Mar 25 '19 at 08:55
Regarding "mit massivem Einsatz von Desinformationen": there have been German Twitter ads by Google shown in a frequency that I have not seen for any other sponsored tweets. — pmf, Mar 25 '19 at 10:13
@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 '19 at 10:42
For a laugh, you can check the page of the sogenannte NGO: https://sogenannte-ngo.de/. Do not forget the click the important informations link. — allo, Mar 25 '19 at 11:44
@JRE, while i highly doubt the story, 40000*450 is a measly 18 000 000 'ein Nasenwasser' for Google. The mechanism of clandestine payment would be quite a challenge, though... — bukwyrm, Mar 28 '19 at 16:20
@bukwyrm: The problem isn't the cost. The problem is finding 40000 bribeable people without accidentally trying to bribe someone who would rather break the story than take your money. — JRE, Mar 28 '19 at 16:26
Very important distinction: you've translated the German word *wenn* as the English word "when". This word actually means "if". This may have a significant impact on the character of the statement. — anaximander, May 22 '19 at 14:17
@anaximander "If" seems too weak to me (that would be the German "Falls"). People seem to use [if or when](https://context.reverso.net/translation/german-english/wenn+etwas+passiert) when translating, depending on context. Looking at [usage examples](https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/wenn), it's also not always used as "if". And the context of course makes it clear that it is a statement of fact, not an "if-then" ("Nun wird offensichtlich versucht, auch mit gekauften Demonstranten die Verabschiedung des Urheberrechts zu verhindern [...]"). — tim, May 22 '19 at 14:29
@tim As a German speaker myself, I'm aware of the distinction. *Wenn* translates to "when" only in the conditional sense, as in "I take an umbrella when it's raining", or "what to do when your car breaks down". In the quote you've posted, I feel it's important to note that the intent is "in the case where [American corporations try to prevent laws]", and *not* "Now that this thing is actually happening". In idiomatic English, this would likely be rendered as the word "When", but presented in short form here, I feel the distinction changes the strength of the assertion. — anaximander, May 22 '19 at 14:37

score 61 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 17 '20 at 09:41

61

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.

edited Jun 17 '20 at 09:41

Community

1

answered Mar 24 '19 at 13:17

tim

51,356
19
207
177

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. – LangLаngС Mar 24 '19 at 13:46
3

BTW. it wasn't EDRi money (nor MS or twitter) either: https://twitter.com/je5perl/status/1109501146819899393 – LangLаngС Mar 24 '19 at 16:03
8

Plus, his own party colleagues call his statement "insane": https://twitter.com/tj_tweets/status/1109486854687084544 – LangLаngС Mar 24 '19 at 17:00
See also https://edri.org/join-the-ultimate-action-week-against-article-13/ (under "19 to 27 March") and https://edri.org/join-us-in-strasbourg-to-saveyourinternet/ (which is linked from the former page). A good handful of copies of each, from different days in March, are also in the Internet Archive. – user Mar 24 '19 at 19:00
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 '19 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: https://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. – LangLаngС Mar 25 '19 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 '19 at 12:20
1

@LightnessRacesinOrbit So use different language. No reason to equivocate. Surely you see that there are not just the two extremes. – Konrad Rudolph Mar 25 '19 at 23:08
2

@KonradRudolph That's literally what tim did. I am advocating avoiding those extremes, as tim did. I cannot agree that he was equidistantly extreme in the other direction when he flatly stated _"The money was not for participating in demonstrations in Germany or elsewhere"_. This makes no sense to me. – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 26 '19 at 00:39
2

@LightnessRacesinOrbit Tim’s answer is by no means *bad* but it’s distinctly missing a summary which accurately characterises the claim as what it is, i.e. an intentional lie. This would *add clarity*. Instead we have “misrepresented the issue” which is once again open to interpretation. – Konrad Rudolph Mar 26 '19 at 09:49
3

@KonradRudolph If you have evidence that there was an intention to deceive, you could write an answer to that affect. Until then, we should stick to the facts. LangLangC gets close in theirs although I don't find it convincing enough to cast aspersions. That's not what we're here for. – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 26 '19 at 11:10
1

@LightnessRacesinOrbit “We should stick to the facts” is impossible. *Everything* written here is open to interpretation, and this is precisely the issue that LangLangC highlights: you pretend that there’s a categorical difference between the statement “given the available evidence, this is almost certainly an intentional lie” and other claims in this answer. And this is not the case: at best the difference is quantitative, not categorical. The *most likely explanation* of the observations is indeed that this is intentional. Pretending otherwise is partisanship, not balance. – Konrad Rudolph Mar 26 '19 at 11:38
2

@KonradRudolph Sticking to the facts is literally why this website exists. If you can't do that, you're in the wrong place. – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 26 '19 at 11:45
1

@LightnessRacesinOrbit You continue to not engage with my point and resort to platitudes. “Facts” aren’t as simple as you make them out to be. And by succumbing to this misconception you’re falling prey to the dishonest debate tactics employed here, such as the Gish Gallop. – Konrad Rudolph Mar 26 '19 at 11:59
@KonradRudolph Okay, with that, I think we're done here. Have a good day. – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 26 '19 at 11:59
@KonradRudolph I don't see why attempting to suggest we can guess their intentions is any better than just saying exactly what the information we have shows us. The issue was misrepresented. We _don't know_ if that was a deliberate lie or not, so adding it to the answer only poisons the well. Even speculating on it is adding an opinion to something that is quite clear without it. I don't see why the answer should specify that it was a deliberate lie, when the reader can make that judgement themselves based off the information; just like you have done. – JMac Mar 27 '19 at 16:25

score 10 · Answer 2 · edited Jun 17 '20 at 09:41

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.

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 '19 at 16:06
@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. — LangLаngС, Mar 25 '19 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 '19 at 16:53
@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). — LangLаngС, Mar 25 '19 at 16:58
@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 '19 at 09:21

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

2 Answers2