Fact check: What is the background of the Crowds on Demand founder and their experience with protests?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Adam Swart is the founder and CEO of Crowds on Demand, a company he established in October 2012 ^[1]. The company specializes in providing hired actors to pose as various types of crowd participants, including fans, paparazzi, security guards, unpaid protesters, and professional paid protesters ^[1].

Swart's experience with protests is extensive through his company's operations. Crowds on Demand offers services for organizing crowds for various causes and events ^[2], creating movements, building impactful events, and providing phone banking and mass-emailing services with a focus on shaping public perception ^[3]. The company has been involved in various controversies, including astroturfing and providing fake protesters for political campaigns ^[1].

A significant recent development demonstrates both Swart's experience and business principles: he turned down an offer reportedly worth around $20 million to help recruit demonstrators for nationwide protests against former President Donald Trump ^{[4] [5]}. Swart cited concerns about ineffectiveness and safety as reasons for declining this substantial offer ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual elements not explicitly addressed in the original question:

• Controversial business model: Crowds on Demand operates in a morally ambiguous space, providing services that can be seen as manipulating public perception and democratic processes through astroturfing ^[1].
• Scale of operations: The $20 million offer suggests that Crowds on Demand has significant capacity and reputation in the protest organization industry, indicating this is not a small-scale operation ^{[4] [5]}.
• Ethical considerations: While Swart declined the anti-Trump protest offer, the company's regular business model involves providing "fake protesters," raising questions about the authenticity of public demonstrations ^[1].
• Political implications: The company's services could benefit various political actors, campaign organizations, and advocacy groups who seek to create artificial grassroots movements or amplify their messaging through manufactured crowd support.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, seeking background information about the founder and their protest experience. However, there are some considerations:

• The question's framing as simply asking about "experience with protests" may inadvertently legitimize what could be considered manipulation of democratic processes through fake grassroots movements ^[1].
• The question doesn't acknowledge the controversial nature of the business model, which involves creating artificial public support that could mislead the public and policymakers about genuine public sentiment.
• By focusing solely on the founder's background and experience, the question may miss the broader implications of how such services could undermine authentic political discourse and public debate.

The analyses consistently show that while Swart has extensive experience in protest organization, this experience comes through providing artificial crowd services rather than genuine grassroots organizing, which represents a significant distinction in the context of democratic participation.