Remix des TagesEU-Kommission frisiert heimlich lustige Rede von Günther Oettinger

Oettinger bei seiner Rede auf dem Digital4EU Stakeholder Forum.

Unser Digitalkommissar Günther „Taliban“ Oettinger hat vor zwei Wochen auf dem Digital4EU Stakeholder Forum seine Pläne für eine europäische Digitalunion vorgestellt. Über die lustige Rede hatten wir schon berichtet und auch das Video vor der Depublizierung gerettet. Davon gibt es auch eine offizielle übersetzte Version der EU-Kommission. Die wurde aber rasch zurückgezogen und durch eine neue ersetzt. Wir gratulieren zu der Meisterleistung, damit gleich zwei netzpolitische Themen auf einmal zu adressieren: Das Recht auf Vergessen mit der Remix-Kultur!

Offenbar fanden Mitarbeiter der EU-Kommission den Originaltext auch so lustig, dass sie ihn für die Nachtwelt zensieren frisieren mussten. Der neue Text hat leider sämtlichen Wortwitz verloren. Aber lest selbst, wir haben die Originalversion aus dem Bing-Cache gefischt und mit der neuen Version verglichen. Wir erklären das mal zum Remix des Tages!

(Ähnlichkeiten mit Hans-Peter Uhl sind rein zufällig.)

Hier ein Diff zwischen gesprochenem Wort und frisierter Version. Außer den Füllwörtern blieb nichts unverändert, ein ganzer Teil wurde ersatzlos gestrichen:


  • before-change
  • after-change
  • gelöscht
  • hinzugefügt

Günther Oettinger: Speech at the Digital4Europe Stakeholder Meeting

Ladies I am very happy that you attend this conference to share your expertise with us, but also to listen to our views and Gentlemen, Director General, Dear representatives from many many EU Members States, as citizens, as workers, as entrepreneurs, as producers, consumers, we, all ideas. One of us are consumers, all of us are the main messages I want to pass on to you today is that Europe does not want to lose the game in a revolution, the digital revolution.revolution. We want to win. We have to act and react but should not end up on the losing side.

I am very grateful to you for coming here to share your expertise, but also to take away Let me start with a very very clear signal, a message that is that in comparison with other revolutions driven by technology. Take printing. When printing and reproducing the digital written word became possible, the first educated society emerged. The next revolution that Europe does not want was driven by the steam engine. It allowed people to lose. We want be more mobile; it provided warmth and security and was the basis for the industrial revolution. Then, there was the automation under Henry Ford, the ability to prevail. We have got to act produce goods en masse, and react, but not be on much later the losing

If we can Digital technology drives the next revolution. But if you compare this what is happening now with other types of revolutions printing, it took decades for people to be able to read a book. The digital revolution is happening much faster and is accelerating all the time. That means that you can fall behind very quickly. This is why we have been driven by technology. I suppose that printing was the first such of revolution to ensure that became possible to print and reproduce the written word. That’s when the first educated society emerged.we are on board.

At Allow me another comparison: In the same time we had in parallel Protestantism, so in parallel past, the IT-sector was like a small football field with only six players – at the time the Catholic church we Americans had lost, European companies were at the Lutheran and other Protestant Churches.forefront of innovation.

We had the steam engine which came and gave rise to another revolution and But now, in came a generation lot of electricity everywhere, it allows us to be more mobile, it allowed areas the industrial revolution US are ahead of everybody else, they decide what the standards are. If we move now away from the smaller „mini“ football tournaments to provide us with warmth the genuine „World Cup“ we have teams of eleven, you have lots of different representatives of industry, arts and security.crafts, various sectors of society, they come back onto the playing field or they stay on the side lines. This is a different game. Europe is able to win this game. But it is a challenge.

Then you have automation under Henry Ford, Take the ability to produce goods en masse, automatically automotive industry. Europe is strong in constructing cars but also buses and then of course the introduction trucks. Europe is a net exporter of the be it Peugeot, Fiat, Renault Skoda, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audio, VW, Opel or Ford.

Now digital technology But now, you may have read about it, also Google and Apple is going to make cars. This is bringing possible because the next revolution. However if you compare this with the printing press, the printing press took decades for people technology has changed. You have no longer to get a book in their hands for the first time, usually it was the bible.use old fashioned tools to cut steel but use 3D printers.

The digital revolution Or take another example underlying the huge change we are undergoing: When I was 18 years, the most important thing was to get a second hand car. If you look at what a 17 or 18 year old wants nowadays, a car is happening much more quickly and it is accelerating all the time. That means you’re either up there with it or you fall behind. We a communication centre which just happens to have got to ensure that we are on board. And that means that our ideas, our values, our abilities, our interests also 4 wheels and our ideas in exchanging information and communicating are part of that.move.

Now, clearly it has a lot it can offer but at This shows that also society is in the same time it is like midst of a small football field with only six players revolution that is the IT sector and that is where the Americans have lost this.driven by digital technology.

The question therefore is: What is it we have to do to win the game? In a lot of areas of digital production Germany people talk about „Industry 4.0“, in France it is the Americans are up there ahead of everybody else, they decide what „usine du future „, the standards are. And to a certain extent, digital economies are characterised by monopolies to a large extent. Which meaning is why the Americans have been able to define quite a few different „rules“.same.

If we move away from It means that the smaller „mini“ football tournaments to IT sector is no longer a separate sector but it changes the genuine „World Cup“ we have teams of eleven, way how goods are produced and how the banking and the insurance sector work. Let me know ask a rhetorical question? Why do you have lots of different representatives still need a branch of industry, arts the ING in the main street, with expensive staff and crafts, various sectors of society, they come back onto the playing field counters? What do you need is an ATM machine, online banking. I can check my bank extracts, print-outs at home. Advice is only important when you get married, writing your will or they stay on the side lines.getting divorced. That is not something that you do every day, luckily.

Now automobile construction is a European strength so we are taking But the internet goes far beyond that. It allows new business models: Apple pay for example, knows more about cars, but also buses and trucks. That applies in most member states and, because of you than your own bank, or if you use an iPhone, the subsidiary accessory industries, company that applies to another number of other countries in Europe. As Europe is a net exporter of cars be it Peugeot, Fiat, Renault Skoda, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audio, VW, Opel or Ford in Europe. In any case, Europe is still in this mobility sector – gave you the market leader.SIM card, knows all about your credit worthiness, your shopping habits and everything.

Now you may have read that Google and Apple are going to make cars. Because obviously there is a shift when it comes to mobility when using electricity. And then you have digital printing which means that you no longer have data gives rise to use lasers business models and go cutting steel and all here is where the rest to produce the various parts of the body of the car. You can now actually print them Americans are in 3D which means digital innovation so that means a new Peugeot or a new Mercedes Benz compared to the previous model which is only 7 years older which has lead. They have got 50 % digital technology. The digital technology determines not only the brakes, data, the security, exhaust fumes business models and therefore the engine power, digital steering technology are very important.power.

When I was 18 years old the most important thing was We have therefore to get a second hand car. If you look at what a 17 or 18 year old wants nowadays, a car back into business and the only way to do it is more by being part of a communication centre which happens to have 4 wheels and move.the European Team.

So this is a revolution in this society driven by digital technology and society itself and a lot of the younger people in the room are active participants and I am more reactive than active. So what do we have to achieve that our economy stays on board. In Germany people talk about the „FoF“ or in France it is the “ usine du futur “ and all of these are things are the same.

Moving away from the IT sector to provide services, control functions which determine production in the factories in the printing houses, in banks and in the insurance sector. So why for example do you need a branch of the ING in the main street, expensive staff, counters? What you need is an ATM machine, online banking, I can check my bank extracts, print-outs at home and what about banking advice, consultations? Is that important when you get married, writing your will, divorcing? That is not something that you do every day, luckily.

Apple pay for example, that is someone who knows more about you than your own bank if your use or an iPhone, or say the company that gave you your SIM card, knows all about your credit worthiness, your shopping habits and everything.

Take car insurance for example – they know that last time you were involved in an accident 10 years ago but Facebook and Apple know more. They know how long it takes to travel Paris to Marseille, overnight, when it’s raining, they know when you made a phone call during the trip and they know more about your habits as well because we are going through a digital revolution where data is power.

And data gives rise to business models and here is where the Americans are in the lead. They have got the data, the business models and therefore the power. So we have got to get back into business and that’s only going to be possible of being part of the European Team.

Each Member State on its own is too small. Thirty years ago I came into the government ago, in my region Baden-Württemberg and rttemberg, we drew up a data protection law for Baden-Württemberg, for law. Then the region in Germany for 11 million people. Then Bremen, in the North drew up their its own data protection law. The idea being that Bremen can protect data is absurd. Then it applies to 28 individual data protection laws for each country, be it Ireland, Greece, Portugal, whatever Google is not going to pay any attention to that, Facebook even less. They will go to the Member State where data protection is least developed, they will then come along with their „electronic vacuum cleaner“ and suck up all the data, take the data to California, process it and sell it as a service for money.

For all these reasons we need a basic structure for European data protection. We need one European Competition Law. That means that anyone that wants to do business in Europe by providing services using knowledge of data, they are going to have to take account of our rules, comply with our rules or they are going to have trouble from Directorate General for Competition and then be ultimately be thrown out of the internal market.

We for the moment accept Google, Facebook and Chinese enterprises like Ali Baba and so on. But if they wish to do business in Europe, then they will have to observe our rules and that’s the reason why a European Digital Single Market is necessary in the interest of all citizens of all governments of all member states.

Fragmented rules in a globalised sector, that what it is the digital sector is, it is a globalised sector. Here fragmented rules have no authority. Those who don’t want to see more of Brussels, don’t want to see more of European rules need to know that without Europe we will be powerless and we will lose out. The digital sector is a sector which does need to be „Europeanised“. We need to have a European Digital Union, the Digital Union, just like a banking union is what I have in mind.

Europe has been built on four pillars, you have the Union of Peace which its own is more topical than ever, the Community of Values, thirdly we have got currency and fourth the Single Market or the Internal Market, which functions and works when it comes to food and drink when it comes to vehicles, machinery, banking services but for not for digital services.

You can buy a Bordeaux in Brussels and can enjoy it in Helsinki. You don’t have to pay any customs duty, you don’t have to worry about bringing it with you. However when it comes to a football match, say Liverpool v Chelsea, you cannot book it in London and watch it in Brussels because we have still got fragmented digital markets and if you look at our national borders (and I respect these borders because they are still cultural borders) because they are the borders that define Europe’s cultural diversity that go back to Napoleon, to the Congress of Versailles, they go back to the Conference of Yalta and prior to that the Congress of Vienna. But when it comes to digital communications and digital services, Napoleon did not have much of an idea of what they were, because for him it was a question of drums and homing pigeons and not much else. So if you look at the digital citizen, you cannot draw a dividing line between the digital citizen in Germany and in Strasbourg, France. So it is important to ensure for the Digital Union becomes a complete Digital Single Market.

One further idea involves awareness, education and specialised training because according to our estimates we need 150,000 additional experts to come onto the market every year in Europe and we don’t have those. So there we need to have a sort of „Green Card“ so that people from India and Singapore can come here.absurd.

But we also, young Europeans, our children, we need a fewer lawyers (like myself) and more people who are experts This applies also to 28 national data protection laws. Google or Facebook will not respect national legislation. They will establish their company in IT. I want to talk to the Research Member State where data protection is least developed and Cultural Ministers in from that Member State suck up all the data coming months to agree on from other Member States like a set of objectives, as huge „electronic vacuum cleaner“, transfer the data to the standards California, process them and to the number of study places available for informatics training, so we can ensure in the next generation we have a genuine argument in favour of Europe sell them as a digital location.service for money.

Secondly, For all these reasons we need skills and data protection at the European level. This means that means on-going into further education for everyone. Whether you work in a factory in the Ardennes or in the Black Forest producing tools, whether it is „M anyone who wants to M“ or „B to B“ anybody who works do business in any Europe by providing services using knowledge of these sectors data, has got to take account of our rules and will have to understand software and digital control systems or they will not be able to keep up.comply with them.

In the trade unions If Google, Facebook and the chambers of commerce you are going Chinese companies like Ali Baba wish to do business in Europe, they have to have these facilities for on-going education observe our rules and IT training so that our enterprises can remain up to date for that’s the digital world which reason why a European Digital Single Market is just around necessary in the corner.interest of all citizens, of all governments, of all member states.

Then we have go to ensure that the digital revolution apply changes You can buy a Bordeaux in every domain – copyright law for example Brussels and if can enjoy it in Helsinki. You don’t have to pay any customs duty, you are don’t have to worry about bringing it with you. However when it comes to a writer and football match, say Liverpool v Chelsea, you write a cannot book it in London and the publisher comes along and publishes, if there is an editor doing research producing commentary spending their time. So, you decide on whether the Commission has done good work or has not done its job. Today’s conference was exciting or the contributions were worthwhile, or not – that’s their it in Brussels because we have still got fragmented digital markets.

The same applies In addition, to a European digital market, we need skilled people. According to our estimates we need an additional 150,000 IT experts every year. This is why I want to talk to the script writer, the director, composer, the musicians Research and singers – Cultural Ministers in every case we have got coming months to agree on a very very prominent European culture which consists set of a lot objectives, standards and number of intellectual know-how and intellectual places available for IT.

On the other hand we have got an Internet Community of people who wish to provide information and they are saying anything that But this is stored not only about experts, everybody needs digital skills. Whether you work in a factory in the internet, should be available. So we need some of reform on our copyright law to deal with Ardennes or in the access Black Forest producing tools, whether it is „M to digital data and we need M“ or „B to find a reasonable balance between the rights of the producer, creator, users B“, you have to understand software and that applies to the publisher, transporter, broadcasting companies control systems.

So, The other sector we have to look at is copyright. In a fascinating set of tasks ahead of us and would call upon you digital era, copyright legislation need to ask for your views of be adapted, which will not easy. On the issue of copyright, rules one hand, we have to preserve and legislation.foster our European culture and therefore protect the intellectual property.

We hope to produce a first draft of European Legislation for European Copyright by On the middle of this year. That will be a twitter chat in a couple of days‘ time, so other hand, there is an internet community which has other interests. In our reform we want therefore we need to get everyone on board, find a reasonable balance between the creators rights of content, the users of content, citizens. So we’ve got Shakespeare, Schiller producer, creator and Udo Jürgens but they’re not going to take us into the future, we need descendants of all these three.users.

Ladies and Gentleman I think As you see – we still have interesting tasks ahead of us. We do not want to tackle them alone but ask for your input. In a chance, because Europe has few days, we organize a big market, we’ve got the most exciting twitter chat on copyright, and the most active market you are invited to take part in the world, we’ve got start-ups, we have SMEs, we have a very creative society, we have a lot of freedoms, at lot of

So, Ladies and Gentleman I think we must be willing still have a chance to take part in this competition not against win the American’s, not against the South Koreans, not against the Chinese or the Indians, but with them. In this race, because Europe has a large market, we’ve got start-ups, we have got to ensure that during this digital revolution Europe can prevail.SMEs, we have a very creative society.

I know that jobs will change, but We have to take part in this competition – not AGAINST the number of jobs is US, not really going to fall. We hope we can improve quality of life, improve traffic safety, provide better health services and so on and so forth.So, I think AGAINST the balance South Koreans, not AGAINST the benefits outweigh Chinese or the disadvantages. If everyone is willing to play in the „European Team“ and bring in their expertise and know-how.Indians, but WITH them.

Once again many thanks for coming in such impressive numbers I know that changes always have their downsides, and for your interest some fear that with the digital revolution some types of jobs will disappear. They might be right. But I am convinced that we will have new jobs and motivation throughout that in total the number of jobs will stay the day. same. I think with that also believe, we can improve the quality of life, improve traffic safety, provide better health services and so on and so forth. Over all, the benefits will be able outweigh the disadvantages – if everyone is willing to move forward to a European Digital in the „European Team“ and bring in their expertise and know-how.

Thank you.Once again, let me thank you for coming. I think with that we will be able to move forward to a European Digital Union.

Deine Spende für digitale Freiheitsrechte

Wir berichten über aktuelle netzpolitische Entwicklungen, decken Skandale auf und stoßen Debatten an. Dabei sind wir vollkommen unabhängig. Denn unser Kampf für digitale Freiheitsrechte finanziert sich zu fast 100 Prozent aus den Spenden unserer Leser:innen.

39 Ergänzungen

    1. Das führt nirgendwo mehr hin, Kollege! Wir stecken doch schon längst tief drin. Noch nicht gemerkt?

  1. Ernst gemeinte Frage: Kann man sich da nicht beschweren bzw. klagen? Es kann doch unmöglich legal sein, eine Rede nachträglich durch eine vollkommen andere zu ersetzen.
    Wo recherchiert man denn Einspruchsmöglichkeiten?

    1. Klagen kann ich mir nicht vorstellen, bin aber nicht sicher. Am Besten wäre wohlmöglich ein öffentlicher Skandal. Allerdings wird es die meisten Bürger wenig kümmern. Dementsprechend taucht sowas auch nicht auf den Titelseiten großer Medienportale auf. Das sieht man auch ganz gut an der EU-Datenschutzmanipulation. Da ist das Kleid von Veronika Ferres wohl wichtiger :-(

  2. Günther Oettinger – unbestritten das hellste Sternchen unter den Europäischen Sternen – hat nicht nur eine Rede gehalten, sondern auch schützenswertes geistiges Eigentum produziert.

    Diese intellektuelle Leistung des Herrn Oettinger ist nun durch dritte geschändet worden, und zwar in einer Weise, wie es jeden Tag unzählige Male geschieht, um Flecken auf elitären Westen zu entfernen, die Minderbegabte immer wieder verursachen. Die Differenz zwischen öffentlicher (Fehl)-Leistung im real-time-modus und redigierten Protokollen produziert für eine Nachwelt, würde der Volksmund griffig mit „den Arsch retten“ metaphorisieren. Diese wohlgeübte Praxis ist allgemein als systemrelevant anerkannt und somit alternativlos und unverzichtbar nützlich. Kritiker mögen natürlich eine andere Sicht der Dinge haben, aber wen kümmert das schon?

    Sicherlich wird es Herrn Oettinger nicht verborgen bleiben, dass sein Werk in einem Ausmaß verändert wurde, wie man es nur selten bei ersten Entwürfen oder VroniPlag findet. Wenn ein Autor oder Redner sein eigenes Werk so publiziert findet, ohne dass er sich bei geneigter Anstrengung darin wieder finden könnte, folgen rechtliche Auseinandersetzungen meist umgehend, vorausgesetzt die Urheberrechte wurden nicht abgetreten oder anderweitige triftige Gründe liegen vor.

    Da all dies in diesem Falle wohl nicht zutreffend sein dürfte, wird man auf eine Reaktion des Herrn Oettinger gespannt warten dürfen.

    1. Solch‘ Kommentar würd‘ ich mal gerne in „unseren Qualitäts“-Zeitungen lesen.
      Sind die zu doof? zu feige? zu humorlos? hörig? ahnungslos? glauben sie’s nicht?

    2. In der Tat ziemlich schokierend was da passierte. Die Originalversion war richtig gut zumindest im Vergleich was da sonst so aus Brüssel kommt. Oettinger hat viele Probleme beim Namen genannt. Und nun diese neue Version. Kernbestandteile, Probleme, einfach rausgestrichen, Assuagen umformuliert und raus kommt ein weichgespülter allerweltstext formuliert, wenn nicht zusammenkopiert, von einem englischmuttersprachlichen Jurastundenten ohne Ahnung. Klingt alles sauber, klingt alles am Thema vorbei. Tolle Wurst :-(

      Na wenigstens wird einem so klassklar vor Augen geführt wie die Entscheidungsprozesse auflaufen. Wie mit der Rede selbst so auch später mit den Inhalten. Nochmal ein paar Juristen drüberjagen und verloren ist die Sache aber dafür Spielt gute Musik wenn das Schiff untergeht.

  3. also, ich glaub, wenn man nur den unveraenderten Text hernimmt, alles hintereinander schreibt und die Quersumme bildet kommt 42 raus …

  4. Bitte gebt Oettinger ein 300 PS digitales, selbstfahrendes Auto mit einer bevorzugten Standleitung und einer 1000 m Lan-Kabeltrommel im Kofferraum und lasst ihn losfahren !!!

  5. Nichtcode-Textanalyse mit Difftools ist sicherlich interessant aber taugt kaum für ernsthafte, Textanalyse.

    Plagiatschecker, Notepad++ Plugin, oder auch in Word geben da bessere, und lesbarere Ergebnisse. (auch für Oettinger)

    Zum Beispiel Copyscape errechnet beim Einkopieren der zwei Texte satte 57 prozent 1:1 Übernahmen im neuen revidierten Text. Bei fast halbierter Wortzahl ist der Inhalt dann doch erstaunlich kongruent.

  6. Schön, vielen Dank!

    Mal sehen, ob unsere Qualitätspresse den Mumm hat, dieses diff zu präsentieren .. Ich mein – auch wenn der sich immer zum Kasper macht – das färbt ja auch auf den EU-Rat ab und darauf, wie man die Ergebnisse von dessen Arbeit nehmen kann. Aber das passt ja zur Aussage des EU-Kommissionsvorsitzenden: „Wenn es ernst wird musst Du lügen“. Wie das konkret aussieht kann man an dem bunten diff gut nachvollziehen.

  7. Auch wenn Oettinger viel Mist erzählt, ist dieses Diff doch *sehr* irreführend und das „außer den Füllwörtern blieb nichts unverändert“ geht doch stark an den Tatsachen vorbei. Hier ein paar Stichwörter nach denen man suchen kann, um sich davon zu überzeugen:

    Helsinki; Ali Baba; SIM card; steam; 28; Indians; Liverpool.

    Jeder dieser Begriffe kommt sowohl im alten als auch im neuen Text genau einmal vor und liefert somit eine gute Vergleichsbasis. Das Ergebnis möge bitte jeder selbst beurteilen.

    1. Das ist mir auch aufgefallen. Das Diff ist, mit Verlaub, scheiße. Das müsst Ihr bitte dringend überarbeiten! Die vermeintlich komplett gestrichenen Absätze tauchen dann weiter hinten als „neu“ auf. Das ist nicht sauber gearbeitet! Sowas erwarte ich von in besserer Qualität. Macht Euch nicht ohne Not angreifbar!

      1. Danke für die Bestätigung darüber, dass das Diff nichts taugt. Ich dachte schon ich hätte vielleicht irgendwas völlig missverstanden.

        Also für mich scheint dieser Post ein ziemlicher Griff ins Klo zu sein. Ich habe großen Respekt vor der Arbeit von netzpolitik im Allgemeinen, aber das hier hat mein Vertrauen doch ziemlich erschüttert.

      2. Freilich tauchen die später als neu auf. So funktioniert nunmal ein Softwarediff. Für das Tool ist das auch korrekt – schließlich taucht der Inhalt nicht mehr in seinem alten Kontext auf – genau wie es bei Sourcecode eben auch auf die Reihenfolge ankommt.
        Jetzt hätte Netzpolitik natürlich noch hingehen können und für dich einordnen können ob die Reihenfolge nicht auch Einfluss auf den Inhalt haben könnte aber sie haben es nicht gemacht.
        Ist es damit weniger sinnvoll zu sehen das hier Änderungen vorgenommen wurden?
        Kommentare wie Saibots erschüttern mich in dem Glauben das die Leser hier ein bisschen mehr tun als einfach nur zu konsumieren was ihnen hingeworfen wird.

      3. Eine besser Erläuterung der verschiedenen Markierungen wäre nötig. Was z.B. ist der Unterschied zwischen „before change“ und „gelöscht“? Was bedeutet es, wenn Texte durchgestrichen sind? In der Legende ist das Wort „gelöscht“ nicht durchgetrichen, wohl aber entsprechende Teile im Text.

      4. Ja ist nicht wirklich supertoll. Side by Side wäre ein wesentlich besserer Ansatz gewesen als beide Teile so zusammenzuwürfeln das absatzweise noch größerer Mist dort steht als in der Originalrede. Beispiel:

        At Allow me another comparison: In the same time we had in parallel Protestantism, so in parallel past, the IT-sector was like a small football field with only six players – at the time the Catholic church we Americans had lost, European companies were at the Lutheran and other Protestant Churches.forefront of innovation.

        Grün, Gelb, Blau…alles schön bunt. Aber absolut unlesbar. Um den Absatz einordnen zu können muss ich beide „Original“ Texte lesen. Und warum ist die „Lutheran/Protestant/Catholic church“ nicht rosa gefärbt für gelöscht? Denn im neuen Text sind diese nicht vorhanden.

        Wie gesagt, Side by Side und hervorheben welche Sätze gewandert sind und in den jeweiligen Texten markiert was gelöscht/hinzugefügt wurde wäre hier die besser Herangehensweise meiner Meinung nach. Ist natürlich wesentlich mehr Arbeit als mal schnell den Diff anzuwerfen um den Syntax zu vergleichen. Das geht in 2 Minuten und ergibt einen schön bunten Artikel ;-)

        So erspare ich mir mir den bunten Text und lese und vergleiche selber. Denn auf den Inhalt kommt es ja an, und der wurde hier überhaupt nicht verglichen.

  8. Kleine Anmerkung aus der Technik-Ecke:
    Ich bekomme bei dem Video mit Chrome unter Debian „jessie“ keinen Ton mit HTML5-Video.
    Kennt das jemand, oder soll ich’s einfach gleich an Goo schicken?

  9. Was sagt eigentich Öttinger zu so einer Unverschämtheit? Hat jemand Kontakte, kann man ihn fragen?

  10. Guter Gott! Ist da überhaupt irgendetwas von seinem Geschwurbel übrig? Vielleicht sollte er anfangen seine Reden zu schreiben bevor er sie spricht.
    Andersherum ist das doch irgendwie arg merkwürdig.

  11. Also erstmal: Das nachträgliche Ändern von Redeschriften ist völlig normal. Das liegt vor allem daran, dass Veranstalter vorab schon die Redeskripten bekommen, um sie hinterher zügig zu veröffentlichen, an Pressesprecher zu verteilen usw. Meistens lassen die Redner ja hier mal was weg, und stellen dort etwas spontan um….das wird dann eben hinterher angepasst. Finde ich soweit auch legitim, schließlich wird der Text damit nur „wortgetreuer“. Wenn ich das richtig sehe, lief es hier aber andersherum: Die Rede ist gehalten worden, es gab eine Abschrift, aber weil das Ganze so peinlich ist (oder warum auch immer) hat man die Abschrift nachher dem Soll angepasst??? Ich muss mir das Video wohl doch in Gänze antun;-) Denn genau darum geht es hier: Wurde die Abschrift dem tatsächlichen Vortrag angepasst, oder war es umgekehrt. Ob die Änderungen nun riesig groß sind oder nicht, ist dann gar nicht die Frage. Du änderst IN Wortlaut, nicht davon weg.

    1. Nein, eine Urkundenfälschung kommt hier nicht in Betracht da keine Absicht besteht mit der neuen Fassung der Rede irgendeinen Rechtsanspruch zu stellen.

  12. Bei aller Antipathie für den Oettinger, der Alignment-Algorithmus ist richtig schlecht. Da ist offenkundig wesentlich mehr Übereinstimmung als suggeriert wird.

  13. Der ReMix ist so Klasse!
    Wäre das nicht ein passendes Netzpolitik T-Shirt Motiv?

    Ja Ok… für XXXXXXXXL
    aber n paar Zeilen passen auch auf XS ^^

    .. oder als Foto-Tapete..


Dieser Artikel ist älter als ein Jahr, daher sind die Ergänzungen geschlossen.