I think there is a feeling that this law was largely authored by/for narrow (commercial) interests in the entertainment industry, with little to no regard for its consequences for other parts of the web like open discussion forums and projects such as Wikipedia.

The tech industry are also major lobbyists, who often spend more on influencing politicians in their favor than the entertainment industry does. Commercial interests were on both sides, as much as they'd like you to believe it was a valiant fight of the little guys to save the Internet.

hard to argue that, given the actual in-person turnout at protests, and the role that EDRI and other NGOs played. Those involved there have been very active, and very public, for a long time. Julia Reda is one of them, but maybe also google Thomas Lohninger.

Of course google/fb etc had a stake in this and were lobbying. They're not the ones who stand to lose from this outcome though, even if that's what the Axel Voss & team would like to believe.

When you have massive parts of the population telling you they're not going to vote for you again if you support a piece of legislation, I'd say it's reasonable to say you are betraying your voters when you don't even reconsider your position.

"Massive parts of the population"?

You mean a handful activists? The people at large do not care one bit.

You can claim that you're acting in their best interest, so they should be counted as "on your side", but that's obviously false.

Who have you seen not reconsider their position?

The oil lobby in the background part?

The part where the parliament voted against the wishes of the majority.