Fact check: What are some notable protests or events where Crowds on Demand has been involved?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Crowds on Demand has been involved in several notable protests and events, with their CEO Adam Swart providing key insights into their operations.

Key Notable Involvements:

• Trump-related events: The company was involved in Donald Trump's presidential campaign announcement, where it was revealed that actors were hired to cheer ^[1]. The company provides paid protesters for both conservative and liberal causes related to Trump ^[2].
• Anti-Trump protest rejection: Most significantly, Adam Swart turned down a $20 million offer to recruit protesters for anti-Trump protests, citing concerns about effectiveness and safety ^{[3] [4]}. This represents one of the largest contracts the company has declined ^[5].
• Washington D.C. surge: The company experienced a 400% increase in inquiries for its services in Washington, D.C. amid President Trump's move to federalize the police force, with many protesters being paid or attending as part of their job ^{[6] [2]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the business model and scope of Crowds on Demand's operations:

• Broader service range: Beyond protests, the company supplies paid supporters for public events, rallies, and product launches ^[1], indicating their involvement extends far beyond political demonstrations.
• Bipartisan operations: The company works with both conservative and liberal causes ^[2], suggesting they operate as a neutral service provider rather than advocating for specific political positions.
• Financial motivations: The $20 million rejection demonstrates the significant financial opportunities in the paid protest industry ^{[5] [3]}, which benefits companies like Crowds on Demand by creating a lucrative market for manufactured grassroots movements.
• Safety and effectiveness concerns: Adam Swart's decision to decline the anti-Trump contract was based on concerns about protests being ineffective and potentially violent ^[4], revealing internal ethical considerations within the industry.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, seeking information about specific events rather than making claims. However, there are potential areas where bias could emerge:

• Legitimacy implications: By asking about "notable" events, the question could inadvertently legitimize the practice of paid protesting without acknowledging the ethical concerns about manufactured grassroots movements that Adam Swart himself expressed ^[3].
• Scale underestimation: The question doesn't capture the massive scale of the industry, as evidenced by the 400% increase in requests ^{[2] [6]} and the $20 million contract offer ^[5], which suggests this is a significant business operation rather than isolated incidents.
• Political neutrality assumption: The framing doesn't acknowledge that the company serves both political sides ^[2], which could lead to assumptions about partisan involvement when the reality is more commercially driven.