back
Confirmed False
Several media outlets reported that more than 120,000 people attended last Saturday's rally in the city's central square, and the figure is now widely shared as fact. Other outlets cited far lower counts.
Example Media Group Ltd. — registered in Cyprus, beneficial owner undisclosed
We began by tracing where each figure came from. The 120,000 figure originates from the organisers' own press statement. The 4,000 figure comes from an unnamed police source quoted by a single outlet. Neither number was independently measured.
The square has a publicly measured area of about 22,000 square metres. Crowd scientists commonly estimate dense standing crowds at two to four people per square metre. That gives a theoretical capacity of roughly 44,000 to 88,000 for the square alone, which already makes 120,000 hard to reconcile without the surrounding streets.
We reviewed aerial footage supplied by two broadcasters and a drone operator. The crowd filled the square and parts of two adjoining avenues, but the density was uneven, with large empty areas near the edges. Footage taken at the peak moment suggests a figure well above 4,000.
We asked an independent crowd-counting analyst to review the footage. Using grid sampling, the analyst estimated a peak attendance of between 25,000 and 40,000, with a wide margin of error because of overlapping tree cover and lighting conditions.
Both extreme figures have an obvious incentive. Organisers benefit from larger numbers because they signal public support. Authorities may benefit from smaller ones because they suggest limited public concern. Neither source has a record of providing verified counts for past events.
Several outlets repeated one figure without attribution, and some headlines presented a disputed estimate as settled fact. A fair account would give the range and name the source of each number.
Confirmed False
False. The 120,000 figure is not supported by the evidence. Independent analysis points to 25,000 to 40,000, and the opposing 4,000 figure is also unsupported.
Legal Context
National Law:
This content may violate provisions under the Criminal Code §XX regarding the dissemination of knowingly false information affecting public order.
EU Framework:
Relevant under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), Article 34 — systemic risk assessment obligations for very large online platforms.
DSA Reference:
Platform notification submitted under DSA Art. 16. Response pending as of 2026-03-01.
Based on the evidence reviewed, the claim as stated is demonstrably false. The original source has a documented pattern of publishing misleading content, and the specific assertions made in the claim are contradicted by primary data from verified institutional sources.
This finding has been cross-referenced with two independent fact-checking organisations. No credible evidence supporting the claim was identified during the review period.
https://example.com/original-source/article-12345
https://example.com/original-source/article-12345
https://example.com/original-source/article-12345
If new evidence surfaces, this report gets updated. Every change is logged. We're building toward cryptographic version control, so every update will be permanently auditable. Until then, changes are documented manually and dated.
Original Publication Date
RED DOT doesn't run ads. We don't have a paywall. Every investigation is free to access because that's the point, verified information only works if anyone can reach it. If that matters to you, support the work.






