| Nein |  |
>[https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Ging-Trump-TikTok-Nutzern-auf-den-Leim-article21861925.html]
Sie haben wohl mit dazu beigetragen (weil sowas wohl schon länger bei Trump-Rallys und anderen Veranstaltungen gemacht wird), dass die Trump-Kampagne vorab eine aufgeblasene Interessentenzahl nennen konnte, die dann nachträglich angesichts der tatsächlichen Besucherzahl besonders lächerlich wirkte. Mit der niedrigen Hallenauslastung selber hatten die TikTok User wohl wenig zu tun, allein schon deswegen, weil es nur Abendkasse und keine echte Ticketreservierung gab:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/21/tiktok-kpop-trump-tulsa-rally/]
(...)
As the story spread throughout social media, it became slightly twisted — like a message at the end of a game of telephone. The common refrain shifted from “TikTokers and K-pop fans lead Trump to overestimate his crowd” to “TikTokers and K-pop fans are the reason fewer than 6,200 people showed up to the event.” The former assertion is almost certainly true to some degree, but the latter is not only unlikely but probably false.
(...)
Writer Parker Malloy also put the blame on the campaign. “You’re giving way too much credit to people on social media and not nearly enough blame on Trump’s failure of a campaign for this one,” she tweeted. “The actual story is that the campaign used to be able to count on massive crowds to show up wherever he went, and figured that this first rally back would be a huge hit. I sincerely doubt they were making decisions based on RSVPs.”
(...)
“the campaign promoted signing up as a signifier of support, which probably got a lot of Trump supporters to request tickets who never really had the commitment to follow through. The same way people RSVP for Facebook events as a Like.”
(...)
Entry was not ticket-based, but first-come, first-serve, so there were infinite “tickets” available. “They emailed their entire campaign list the Tulsa invite, which also helps explain why a million people signed up. People click buttons"
(...)