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: article 13, bots, copyright, email, eu, eu copyright directive, gmail, lobbying, sven schulze


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2019 @ 10:26am

    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.


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.