Fact check: Has Crowds on Demand been involved in any high-profile protests or events?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Crowds on Demand has indeed been involved in various high-profile protests and events, though the company has also notably declined certain controversial opportunities.

Confirmed involvements include:

• A rally supporting a foreign leader at the United Nations ^[1]
• A campaign targeting a Czech investor ^[1]
• The 2013 campaign of Anthony Weiner, where the company allegedly provided paid actors to attend campaign rallies ^[2]
• Various events where the company provided hired actors to pose as fans, paparazzi, security guards, unpaid protesters, and professional paid protesters ^[2]

Notable declined opportunities:

• A $20 million offer to organize national protests against US President Donald Trump ^[3]
• Over 100 "lucrative" anti-Israel requests received since October 7th, which the company chose not to pursue ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the controversial nature of Crowds on Demand's business model and the legal challenges the company faces.

Key missing context:

• The company has been accused of extortion and defamation in a lawsuit ^[1]
• Crowds on Demand operates by providing paid actors to simulate grassroots movements, which raises questions about the authenticity of public demonstrations
• The company has received numerous requests for controversial political events, suggesting there's significant demand for manufactured public support across the political spectrum

Alternative viewpoints on the company's role:

• Supporters might argue the company provides legitimate event management and advocacy services
• Critics would likely view the company as undermining authentic democratic participation by creating artificial grassroots movements
• Political operatives across the spectrum appear to benefit from the company's services, as evidenced by requests from various political causes

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual - it simply asks about the company's involvement in high-profile events without making claims or showing apparent bias. However, the question's simplicity obscures the controversial nature of what Crowds on Demand actually does.

What the question doesn't reveal:

• The ethical implications of hiring actors to pose as genuine protesters or supporters
• The scale of requests the company receives for politically sensitive events (over 100 anti-Israel requests alone) ^[4]
• The legal troubles surrounding the company's operations ^[1]
• The potential impact on democratic processes when paid actors simulate authentic public opinion

The framing suggests a straightforward business inquiry when the reality involves complex questions about manufactured consent and authentic political expression.