German Politician Thinks Gmail Constituent Messages Are All Faked By Google

from the not-how-it-works dept

Christopher Clay alerts us to the latest Google Derangement Syndrome from an EU Bureaucrat. Last year, we noted that various EU politicians kept insisting that all of the complaints about their awful plan were due to Google lobbying and astroturfing — when the reality showed that nearly all of the lobbying came from legacy copyright players.

However, German MEP Sven Schulze must have thought he was really on to something in claiming he had real proof of Google astroturfing. In a tweet (in German) he claimed that because all of the complaints he’s getting seem to come from people with Gmail addresses, it’s proof of fakery. No, really. Here’s a translation (courtesy of Google, of course) of his tweet:

Now coming back every second of messages about # upload filter & # Article 13 pure. Apart from the fact that these contents are not correct, ALL come from # Gmail accounts. ?Man # google , I know that you are angry, but ye have this # fake really necessary action?

Really now? Perhaps Schultze is unaware that (as of the most recent public stats), Gmail is used by 1.5 billion people. These days, it’s pretty typical for lots and lots of people to use Gmail as their personal (and often professional) email address. To claim that seeing Gmail emails proves Google is astroturfing is… nutty. And, it would appear that Schulze’s followers recognize just how idiotic this looks.

How do you say ratioed in German?

And many of those 4.5 thousand replies are ruthlessly mocking him for being completely clueless.

I’m guessing he’ll blame Google for all those replies as well?

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “German Politician Thinks Gmail Constituent Messages Are All Faked By Google”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
54 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: If you pretend it's from the boogieman, you don't have t

Particularly NY digital media for self-preservation publishes unverified outrageous claims for the attention. Word selection purposefully ambiguous to imply the most outrageous interpretation, and too often other digital media firms pick up that outrageous implication and write their own story stoked to be even wilder.

The harassment of Covington high-school kids is an example of this. While the digital media world is escalating their feedback loop of outrage to the highest levels, more moderate democrats and trumpets watched the original footage. Waited for more information. Then took note of the loss of credibility of platforms that ran with the outrage.

Smollett is another example of this exact process. Digital media world escalated and fired up feedback loops of outrage to the highest levels, gathering readership clicks for the story. More moderate democrats and trumpets observed things didn’t add up as depicted. Waited for more information. Then again took note of the loss of credibility of platforms that ran with the outrage.

Charlottesville is another example of this process. Digital media escalated and fired up feedback loops of outrage to the highest levels, claiming President Trump came out in front of the world and stated openly he thought racists were fine people. More moderate democrats and trumpets observed the clear and repeated denunciation of white supremacists. Then again took note of the loss of credibility of platforms that ran with the most outrageous interpretation as indicator of racist statement that never happened.

Russia is another example of this process. The Steele dossier is opposition research from the Jeb Bush campaign, then picked up by Clinton, laundered through the press with headlines baked into the document to support itself, then passed through confused politicians to the intel agencies, the rubber-stamp FISA court (so appropriately derided in Techdirt), then used to fuel constant outrage stories for readership clicks. We’ve relived the Groundhogs Day version of the story since then with the same story ramped up over and over again going no where. More moderate democrats and trumpets observe accurately that there’s nothing there, and three years into this all key claims are well documented as empty claims. Looking and taking note of the loss of credibility of platforms, Washington Post and New York Times are two that went hardest at empty claims and lost the most credibility in doing so. They cannot be trusted.

Those of us who took note of the lies, outrage, and omissions that marked us into war in Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush/Cheney are well tuned to spot the bullshit by this point. This is the very same engine driven largely by former intelligence and other political figures now embedded in the press driving their political agendas under protection of freedom of the press. It’s political activist ‘journalism’ that sends us down the wrong path time and time again. I look at the current direction of the left and shake my head wondering when the worst of the Bush/Cheney administration power brokers took over and infested the left. It’s as bad or worse than ever.

Bob N Weave says:

Re: Re: Re: If you pretend it's from the boogieman, you don't ha

I look at the current direction of the left and shake my head wondering when the worst of the Bush/Cheney administration power brokers took over and infested the left.

Think that’s the only point you’re wrong on. In my view, was the left that took over Republican party, starting with the first, a Harvard-educated Northeastern liberal named William Buckley, who simply started calling himself a "conservative" and subverting all our positions. I wondered in the 80s why his National Review wasn’t worried about what I was: debt, big government, and such. It’s since come out that the Kristols used that strategy too, and the "Republican In Name Only" label became necessary.

Anyhoo, today seems there’s almost enough of us here to take over Techdirt! I don’t ally with anyone because not necessary: my views as yours stand on own merits… But one strategy would be get rid of the "hiding" by copy-pasting what the kids censor until they tire of it; when IP address is banned as will be, to get TOR Browser and resume. — But I don’t advocate that because prefer to just HOOT. And it’s not really worth the effort.

It’s certainly a valid response to Masnick’s pieces like this, and then the comments getting off-topic about Trump. Sheesh.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Short-term gain, long-term loss

After having ‘their guy’ spending so long vilifying the press and asserting that it’s all ‘fake’ they are going to have a real fun time when the other side takes the spot and rolls with it.

‘When your guy was in power news critical of the president was nothing but lies and could be ignored, but now that the other side has the seat, now people are supposed to believe news critical of the president when people and agencies put it out? Hypocrisy much?’

Anonymous Coward says:

Ugh, these weasels...

I almost cannot believe the sheer brazen nerve of them, making out like this legislation is meant to target the very beneficiaries of it, the established internet giants whose positions as arbiters of what content is permitted on the internet will be entrenched by making it impossible for anyone to offer alternatives.

Anonymous Coward says:

Copyright is not legacy. Companies purchase the rights from artists who lack mass distribution, and in return most artists get rich. Those who get screwed usually deal with fly-by-night labels or people they trusted, not the biggest players. That’s why the top-shelf talent won’t even work with indies. Listen to the horror stories of unprofessional productions (lack of insurance being one example), or not getting paid, nonunion work or union rules not being followed, and there’s a reason these companies have that "legacy."

Masnick, on the other hand, is a loudmouthed, cowardly (as in lets his commenters bully people as if he shouldn’t endure any consequences for that), NOBODY whose sole purpose seems to be seeding Google with sentence-long headlines that people can read without even clicking to his site.

What was in the other post? The top 20 searches on YOUTUBE (owned by Google) said something, yet Google itself talked about "good censorship." This is predicated on a belief that the audience is stupid and easily manipulated.

Copyrightholders and governments have had enough of piracy. One way or another, it’s on the way out. Anyone who doesn’t like what this does to the internet should blame the pirates, not the government.

Bob N Weave says:

Re: "Copyright is not legacy." -- Good catch of MM's sly phrase.

He’s always slanting that way with adjectives slipped in.

But of course, copyright IS a valuable legacy from the Founding Fathers of America who put in protections for the few creators from the many thieves. Damn good that they did, else the system that works so well to protect WORK and bring benefits to The Public would never have been able to come about.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: "Copyright is not legacy." -- Good catch of MM's sly phr

Yeah!! Lets get back to the "copyright IS a valuable legacy from the Founding Fathers"!!

Which means something can only be copyrighted for 14 years with the option to renew it once for another 14 years.

The benefit to The Public would be awesome since everything copyrighted before 1991 would be in the public domain now.

I like your idea!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "Copyright is not legacy." -- Good catch of MM's sly phr

the few creators from the many thieves

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!

I should really reply seriously to this………HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Ok, ok, whew, wow, that was a good one.

So, given that there are millions (potentially billions at this point) of creators, and that constitutes "a few" to you, please do tell how many thieves you think exist in this world of a few billion people? Please, I’m really interested in what you have to say on this.

the system that works so well to protect WORK and bring benefits to The Public would never have been able to come about

Oh yes, because NOBODY created ANYTHING of BENEFIT to the public prior to the Found Fathers of America coming up with copyright protections. You should do stand up comedy, you’re freaking hilarious, in a sad, pathetic way. I’m assuming then that you think Leonardo Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Galileo, Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare, Chaucer, and all the other famous artists, writers, and creators in history all lived after America was founded? Correct?

Rico R. (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Copyright is not legacy. Companies purchase the rights from artists who lack mass distribution, and in return most artists get rich. Those who get screwed usually deal with fly-by-night labels or people they trusted, not the biggest players. That’s why the top-shelf talent won’t even work with indies. Listen to the horror stories of unprofessional productions (lack of insurance being one example), or not getting paid, nonunion work or union rules not being followed, and there’s a reason these companies have that "legacy."

I’m an independent musician who has put ALBUMS on iTunes, Spotify, etc. I have not had any sales, only streaming royalties totaling up to less than $5. So you would think I would be ALL FOR Article 13. You’d be wrong. If a major label offered to turn me into a star tomorrow in exchange for my rights, I wouldn’t take their deal. NOT because I don’t want to move up within the industry, but because of the industry’s view on copyright not aligning with mine. What I’d consider "free publicity" they’d consider "copyright infringement". They’d call money from Content ID claims "royalties", but I don’t want that kind of royalty.

Furthermore, you’re really generalizing artists who get screwed over who signed to a major label. And nowadays, why would you want to go to a gatekeeper with a chance to get screwed over when you can put music out independently without gatekeepers? That way, if you don’t like what you’re getting, it’s 100% in your control and you can do whatever you want. As far as collaborating with "indies", you again are generalizing it. There are plenty of independent productions that follow the union rules, get union workers, all without the need to go to a gatekeeper for their blessing. You’re painting a picture where the gatekeepers and the industry has everything figured out, and that anyone who says they can do it without them is destined to fail. That’s no longer the case in the 21st century.

Masnick, on the other hand, is a loudmouthed, cowardly (as in lets his commenters bully people as if he shouldn’t endure any consequences for that), NOBODY whose sole purpose seems to be seeding Google with sentence-long headlines that people can read without even clicking to his site.

Bully. Noun. A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker. Bully. Verb. Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants. Tell me this: How is what you say not make you a bully? Furthermore, using sound, logical arguments to rebut arguments like this is not bullying. Even if you’re feelings are hurt because you don’t like what you’re reading doesn’t make that bullying.

What was in the other post? The top 20 searches on YOUTUBE (owned by Google) said something, yet Google itself talked about "good censorship." This is predicated on a belief that the audience is stupid and easily manipulated.

Is there a source saying Google talked about "good censorship"? And as far as the audience being manipulated, come on! Even those in the US who are for copyright law are against Article 13. Just because you disagree with their logic, and Google sides with their logic, does not mean Google manipulated those people. What’s next: Assuming everyone who uses an Android phone is against Article 13 because of Google?

Copyrightholders and governments have had enough of piracy. One way or another, it’s on the way out. Anyone who doesn’t like what this does to the internet should blame the pirates, not the government.

First off, copyright holders lobbied the governments for this kind of law that will screw up the Internet. I already addressed how Article 13 won’t kill piracy in another comment (presumably to you), but to recap: Article 13 won’t stop piracy; it’ll only mess up the rest of the internet platforms who are trying to avoid copyright infringement (i.e. YouTube, Facebook, etc.). If we want to stop Article 13, we need to talk to government officials. Talking to "pirates" will do absolutely nothing!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The law won’t screw up the internet at all.

The major labels and content producers (film, tv) have no difficulty attracting top-shelf talent, because professionals like being treated and paid as such.

Masnick has ties to some pretty awful people that will be highlighted down the road, perhaps not even by me. I’ve gotten wind of some deep-diving exposes that will reveal a lot about some of whom he has spoken very highly. His verbally aggressive tone is that of a bully, one a lot more smug than he should be given what reporters are honing in on now.

Both the anti-copyright and pro-Section 230 brigades consist of a mutual-admiration society numbering fewer than two dozen people who have created a feedback loop that gives the impression that their voices are much larger than they are. One by one, this group will be exposed for what it is and what it does. This is already well underway and what has been published now is literally the tip of the iceberg.

Governments are no longer fooled by this technologically-amplified internet noise. Masnick is like that kid in class who tries to be your friend on the first day of school, before you figure out what he’s about. He’s just not really important enough to put on blast so quickly, more like something done at convenience, or when one has a few minutes of boredom to pass. He’s nothing more than a pathetic little gnat.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The law won’t screw up the internet at all.

Except for the fact that in reality, the internet doesn’t work that way so yes it will.

The major labels and content producers (film, tv) have no difficulty attracting top-shelf talent, because professionals like being treated and paid as such.

Ah so you openly admit that you don’t give a rat’s ass about independent and smaller creators. You only care about "top-shelf talent". This alone is enough for me to dismiss you and everything you say. The internet allows the little guy to have a shot. You openly admit you are against that.

Masnick has ties to some pretty awful people….

[Citation needed] Also, that’s quite the lie you have going on there about deep-diving exposes.

His verbally aggressive tone is that of a bully, one a lot more smug than he should be given what reporters are honing in on now.

And your tone is any better? Also what reporters? Facts or GTFO please.

Both the anti-copyright and pro-Section 230 brigades consist of a mutual-admiration society numbering fewer than two dozen people who have created a feedback loop that gives the impression that their voices are much larger than they are.

If you were talking solely about TD commenters you MIGHT be able to argue that, but the number of registered commenters would likely still prove you wrong. Regardless, if you look outside TD there are MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of people who think this is a piece of crap.

One by one, this group will be exposed for what it is and what it does. This is already well underway and what has been published now is literally the tip of the iceberg.

Oh I’m so excited to see what kind of fantasy nonsense BS gets published about me! Please, do fill me in on all the juicy details of what I have been doing.

Governments are no longer fooled by this technologically-amplified internet noise.

You mean bought out by deep-pocketed corporate lobbying, bolstered by a lack of technical knowledge of how computers and the internet actually work.

He’s just not really important enough

That explains why he regularly gets media attention, mentioned as a source in other publications and is largely, if not solely responsible for the now mainstream term of the "Streissand Effect". Yes, not important at all.

He’s nothing more than a pathetic little gnat.

Aww! Jealous much?

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Copyright is not legacy.

If you’re not going to bother coming up with a new talking point, then I’m not going to bother coming up with a new response. So here’s a rerun of the one I wrote last week.

You’re either legitimately failing at reading comprehension, or you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

The phrase is "legacy copyright companies". Three words. Not two. The word "legacy" is clearly meant to describe copyright-owning companies whose business model relies on a pre-Internet conception of copyright law.

That is extremely clear from both the phrase and the context. So either you’re bad at understanding plain English — entirely possible; you’re certainly not very good at writing it — or you understand just fine and you’re merely pretending not to.

Which is it, John — are you stupid, or dishonest?

Given that you’re still repeating the same bullshit after I already called you on it, it’s looking a lot like the answer is "dishonest". Though I’m sure your coming replies will provide plenty of evidence in support of "stupid".

Bob N Weave says:

"complaints ... due to Google lobbying and astroturfing"

Is true and NOT contradictory to "nearly all of the lobbying came from legacy copyright players", that’s just your misleading pro-Google juxtaposition.

But the ODD and interesting part of your phrasing there is:

the reality showed

Just wacky. Implies that you believe in more than one reality, or as I’d put it in vernacular: cherry-pick to suit any given piece.

You then go on to IGNORE the 669 "likes", which also fits "many", instead try to claim this person is overwhelmingly opposed.

It’s TRIVIAL at best. So what’s your true purpose with this TRIPE about ONE "German politician"?

Now, for REAL contrast: where’s your numbers for how many "bloggers" are "supported" by Google and attack anyone who opposes it?

Here’s UNDENIABLE evidence linking opposition to this person with Google’s support:

https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png

From the THAT’S HOW IT WORKS department.

Bob N Weave says:

Re: Re: "complaints ... due to Google lobbying and astrotur

Oh, so you missed the recent Techdirt article that referenced an independent study which clearly showed that most of the lobbying came from legacy industry sources, much more than Google?

As I stated, it’s not the NUMBERS: Masnick is mixing "complaints from Google" with "lobbying" from those who have a direct stake in copyright. It’s just Masnick’s usual tactic of putting two unrelated facts up and thereby clearing GOOGLE of its de facto monopoly and underhanded tactics.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: "complaints ... due to Google lobbying and astr

For many, the word "lobbying" is an euphemism for "pay offs". Also, EVERYONE has a stake in copyright which you fail to realize.

And you complaining about Mike allegedly putting two unrelated facts up is hilarious because you mix "facts" willy nilly with made up shit and you ALWAYS refuse to provide citations – instead you engage in straw-man attacks, misdirection or just ignore comments to prove you wrong.

In essence, you are an impotent loudmouth that has stagnated and can’t keep up with the world anymore.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "complaints ... due to Google lobbying and astroturfing"

How is

complaints … due to Google lobbying and astroturfing

true and not contradictory to

nearly all of the lobbying came from legacy copyright players?

Google is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of a legacy copyright corporation.

Logic, consistency, and reading comprehension are really not your strong suits, are they?

Just wacky. Implies that you believe in more than one reality, or as I’d put it in vernacular: cherry-pick to suit any given piece.

No, this just shows you don’t understand English very well and lack much in the way of reading comprehension.

So what’s your true purpose with this TRIPE about ONE "German politician"?

Well maybe the fact that he doesn’t seem to understand how free email services work.

where’s your numbers for how many "bloggers" are "supported" by Google and attack anyone who opposes it?

Umm, what? Who cares? Seriously, who cares if Susie Q blogger who has a blog about knitting is "supported by Google" and quite obviously doesn’t attack anyone who opposes Google because, you know, her blog is about knitting. Have you finally gone off the deep end? Wait, my bad, you did that long ago, let me rephrase. Has the cognitive dissonance finally caught up with you and caused you to devolve into rambling incoherence?

Here’s UNDENIABLE evidence linking opposition to this person with Google’s support:

Wooo! That’s great! You managed to show that Google supports the COPIA INSTITUTE, but not TD. And that link says nothing about anyone else speaking out against this legislation. Congratulations, you failed to prove your point.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Dude unable to understand people use gmail who have nothing to do with Google… and yet you want him to decide how the internet shoudl work?

I think he just proved that none of the legislators pushing this understand anything about the internet & are just in the pockets of the copyright cartels who demand the world pay to protect them from progress.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...