Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Filthy Fernadez

Expert testifies liberal Google moved 2 million to 10 million votes to Hillary in 2016

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Gladiators said:

Would you be okay with companies buying votes?  For example, big oil offering free tanks of gas for those who votes for the individuals they're backing.

That's what they do, except it's bajillions of dollars to buy politicians votes, not individual votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kanil said:

That's what they do, except it's bajillions of dollars to buy politicians votes, not individual votes.

So yes, you'd be okay with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gladiators said:

So yes, you'd be okay with it?

No, I would not be OK with a company paying individuals for votes.  I'm also not OK with companies paying politicians for votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drobeski said:

Liberals hate science 

Don't get me started on those non-gmo, anti-vaccine fockwads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kanil said:

You say there's a rule or law against what they are doing.  Tell me what law/rule specifically they are breaking?

I'm not an expert on election law and not going to become one to answer your question.  I do know there are rules and laws that define how organizations can involve themselves in elections, and working behind the scenes to influence them is definitely against those.  Do you disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yesterday-  It doesn't matter what Russia did with Facebook it didn't influence or change anything.

Today - Google moved 10 million votes to Hillary.

::lol:

Yesterday: Russia influenced the election through $100k worth of Facebook ads = treason, appoint a special prosecutor, impeach

Today: Google tampered with search algorithms to influence 300 million people, and sway 10 million people's actual votes = capitalism, free speech, reeeeeeee

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strike said:

I'm not an expert on election law and not going to become one to answer your question.  I do know there are rules and laws that define how organizations can involve themselves in elections, and working behind the scenes to influence them is definitely against those.  Do you disagree?

Define "working behind the scenes".  Your statement seems pretty vague but if you're specifically asking me if I think Google should be allowed to modify search results, yes I do believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kanil said:

Googles biggest product is search results.  Can they not define their product based on their moral beliefs?

You say there's a rule or law against what they are doing.  Tell me what law/rule specifically they are breaking?

So you'd have no problem with the water company giving you crappy dirty water because they don't like you ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kanil said:

Define "working behind the scenes".  Your statement seems pretty vague but if you're specifically asking me if I think Google should be allowed to modify search results, yes I do believe that.

So let's say they suppressed all search results relating to Donald Trump's website, refused ads from his PACs, etc.....Basically just wiped him off the Internet.  You'd be ok with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drobeski said:

So you'd have no problem with the water company giving you crappy dirty water because they don't like you ?

If your argument is that Google is a utility, then I can understand where you're coming from.  I don't agree, but I understand your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best part about it ...is they went out of their way for HER and still lost 

Losers!!!!!

:lol:  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strike said:

So let's say they suppressed all search results relating to Donald Trump's website, refused ads from his PACs, etc.....Basically just wiped him off the Internet.  You'd be ok with that?

Yes, I would.  If people don't like the company, don't support it.  Don't use it.  If the company pisses off enough people that it starts affecting their bottom line, their shareholders will put them in their place.

 

I do want to point out that google can't wipe anyone off the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drobeski said:

The best part about it ...is they went out of their way for HER and still lost 

Losers!!!!!

:lol:  :lol:

There is absolutely some poetic justice in the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Strike.  I think your argument comes down to believing that Google has essentially put themselves into a position where they are/should be a public utility.  As I said above in my reply to Dr. Obeski, I don't agree but I can understand the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iam90sbaby said:

You know, you’re right. Google is a 100% legit company and they had no bias whatsoever for one candidate or the other. 😂

I didn't say that at all. Google is not at all legit in half a dozen ways.

Im asking how it changes a person's vote. I suppose the allegation is that they steer people to negative Trump articles rather than positive ones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

I didn't say that at all. Google is not at all legit in half a dozen ways.

Im asking how it changes a person's vote. I suppose the allegation is that they steer people to negative Trump articles rather than positive ones? 

If the notion that the last election was swayed by Russians buying ads, then I feel safe in suggesting that Google also had an unacceptable impact.

I find it humorous, bordering on annoying, that these companies and media outlets all do the very thing they claim is threatening our Democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Intense Observer said:

Yesterday: Russia influenced the election through $100k worth of Facebook ads = treason, appoint a special prosecutor, impeach

Today: Google tampered with search algorithms to influence 300 million people, and sway 10 million people's actual votes = capitalism, free speech, reeeeeeee

 

LA Times

Quote

 

This psychologist claims Google search can manipulate voters.

The idea that Google is subtly pushing masses of voters to the left has the ring of conspiracy, and thus the work of Robert Epstein is warmly embraced by conservative lawmakers — as well as a president — convinced big tech is plotting against them.

Yet even some scholars who think the San Diego-based psychologist is wrong about the political impact of search engines — he believes bias built into Google’s processes could have cost Republicans three California congressional districts in the last election — have started paying attention to his detailed work on how voters respond to tens of thousands of search results.

At a moment when misinformation about search engines and social media bias is rampant, with both the left and the right amplifying unsupported claims, Epstein is asking the right questions, they say, about the unseen power of algorithms and how little most Americans understand about the way they work.

Facebook, Twitter and Google have become political footballs for the left and right »

The saga of the persistent San Diego psychologist versus the tech giant is a long-running one, full of twists. As Big Data shapes our opinions in ways scholars are only beginning to comprehend, his work has increasingly caught attention.

“The larger issue he is looking at is extremely important,” said Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor of information studies at UCLA who focuses on the relationships between technology and politics. Srinivasan is not convinced by the claims from conservatives that the GOP is being victimized, but he argues scholars need to look more deeply at how search engines can shape the views of those who use them.

“We turn to these efficient technologies,” he said, “to do almost everything these days without knowing why we see what we see from them or what data is collected about us and how it is being used.”

Epstein, a former Psychology Today editor in chief who runs a nonprofit institute in California, calls the phenomenon he has explored the Search Engine Manipulation Effect.

“These are new forms of manipulation people can’t see,” he said. The technologies “can have an enormous impact on voters who are undecided. … People have no awareness the influence is being exerted.”

Google dismisses his research as the work of a misguided amateur. Company Chief Executive Sundar Pichai said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in December that Google had investigated Epstein’s findings and found his methodology flawed.

Company officials, while declining to comment about Epstein on the record, offered background material asserting that their algorithms are politically blind and respond to searches with news content based on its timeliness, relevance and authoritativeness.

In his latest study, which he and a co-author plan to present in April at the 99th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Assn., in Pasadena, Epstein tracked 47,300 searches by dozens of undecided voters in the districts of newly elected Democratic Reps. Katie Porter, Harley Rouda and Mike Levin.

Mainstream outlets, including the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, dominated the Google search results. By contrast, searches conducted on Yahoo and Bing more often showcased links from deeply conservative outfits such as Breitbart.

Using a model he has developed to gauge the subliminal effect of what he sees as tilted search results, Epstein projected 35,455 voters who were on the fence were persuaded to vote for a Democrat entirely because of the sources Google fed them

That conclusion is subject to much dispute.

 

Hmmm...The  U.S. intelligence agencies vs some guy with a theory...I'll have to consider this for a little while and get back to you.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you didn’t think google and Hillary were best of buds just google Epstein and bill Clinton together and see what they show

not a single picture ever of them together yes tons of them with Epstein and trump even in the Clinton specific search

now do the same on bing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RLLD said:

If the notion that the last election was swayed by Russians buying ads, then I feel safe in suggesting that Google also had an unacceptable impact.

I find it humorous, bordering on annoying, that these companies and media outlets all do the very thing they claim is threatening our Democracy.

I'll agree with your last point and hope they get absolutely hammered (they won't). I find it amazing nobody really cares about this or the Russian meddling.

2020 is gonna be a sh!t show. The chinese will play too this time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yesterday-  It doesn't matter what Russia did with Facebook it didn't influence or change anything.

Today - Google moved 10 million votes to Hillary.

::lol:

The reciprocal is true as well.

Yesterday - Russia helped Trump win...

Today - Google had no affect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BufordT said:

I generally don't use google but I doubt a google search swayed any more votes than Russia interference.  I think both are crap.

I think most people would agree with this.  It's just that, along with what Mike just posted, Democrats ok with calling out Russia but if you say anything about them, then "what are you crying for?  wa wa wa".  It's just the hipocracy of the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kanil said:

I see your point and at least you're being consistent.  I am for a little regulation as possible (something the R party used to stand for, along with fiscal conservatism) and this thread screams of whining for Google to be regulated.

f.y.i., Elizabeth Warren is calling for it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook and Google should be forced to split just like Standard Oil did at one point and the Bell company. Google has essentially become the internet and should absolutely be regulated. I’ve been saying this for years now and the problem has only gotten worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

f.y.i., Elizabeth Warren is calling for it too.

Of course she is.  She's a democrat and loves to regulate others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gladiators said:

Would you be okay with companies buying votes?  For example, big oil offering free tanks of gas for those who vote for the individuals they're backing.

I think a more direct comparison would be if the oil companies bought a controlling interest in google and then adjusted google search results to benefit their interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some truly focked up thinking....."So Google can't do what they want with their company? The world's biggest repository of information can't manipulate the results or hide the truth from people?'

I knew the liberals were a tad loony but JFC that's insane. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Some truly focked up thinking....."So Google can't do what they want with their company? The world's biggest repository of information can't manipulate the results or hide the truth from people?'

I knew the liberals were a tad loony but JFC that's insane. :wacko:

Google isn't a repository of information.  Google is a search agent for the info.  There are several competitors out there who have the same access to that repository.  Use one of them if you don't like it.

Let's not blame liberals because you're trying to stretch this into something it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Newbie. Hung his hat on the whole popular vote narrative. :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BufordT said:

Anyone who believes this is just as nuts as those who believe Russia stole the election.

Just as Nuts? Is there going to be a special prosecutor put in place to investigate it and have it beat down our throats for 2 years by the media?  And a witch hunt that results in people charged and jailed? Just checking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Kanil said:

Google isn't a repository of information.  Google is a search agent for the info.  There are several competitors out there who have the same access to that repository.  Use one of them if you don't like it.

Let's not blame liberals because you're trying to stretch this into something it isn't.

I retract the repository comment.

However them hiding information is censorship and they're doing it clandestinely i.e. no disclaimers. You support censorship? 

It's indefensible man. Just stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

I retract the repository comment.

However them hiding information is censorship and they're doing it clandestinely i.e. no disclaimers. You support censorship? 

It's indefensible man. Just stop.

How is it censorship?  Are they making it so you can't get to a website?  Use Yahoo or Bing or whatever.  You're out here screaming for regulation because this is a liberal company.  If they had been biased the other direction, you'd be silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Intense Observer said:

How specifically did they do this?

Well, it starts with the individual.  Everyone thinks they're unique and special, and stereotyping is bad, but in reality, you're not unique.  You're not special, and you're very easily and accurately stereotyped.

Next the individual gives gobs and gobs of data to social media companies who in turn take that data and sell it to anyone who wants to but it.  So everywhere you go, every site you look at, every thing you buy with a credit card, everything you thumbs up or heart.  It's all out there to be data-mined.

Next some smart guys go and buy all this data.  (Don't worry, they probably don't have your name.  It's probably anonymous.  It's also millions of people, so no one cares about your porn habits anyway.)

So these smart guys have this data.  And they model people.  People who buy A, B, and C or heart D, E, and F or visit sites G, H, are likely to vote for politician X.  

Now what about people who only buy items A and B, and go to site H, and heart post E?  Well shìt, that looks a lot like a politician X voter.

Okay, so what if the smart guys go to politician X and say give us a lot more money than we paid for this data, and we'll give you a list of 20 million Facebook users or Twitter users or IHeartRadio users or linkedIn users or YouTube users who might be able to be convinced to vote for you.

Politician X's campaign manager says cool.  Then they go hire some other smart guys that go bombard those possible politician X voters with ads and articles that talk about how great politician X is and how terrible his or her opponent Politician Y is.  Most of which is absolute bullshìt.

And because people aren't unique.  Because people aren't special, and because people can easily be stereotyped, those 3-11 million people are swayed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, iam90sbaby said:

You don’t think Google edits organic search results or search suggestions? You think they are 100% legit and unbiased?

I believe this more than I do the Russia story. It’s already been proven Google does things to skew search results for or against things/people they do not have any interest in. Would not surprise me at all 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kanil said:

How is it censorship?  Are they making it so you can't get to a website?  Use Yahoo or Bing or whatever.  You're out here screaming for regulation because this is a liberal company.  If they had been biased the other direction, you'd be silent.

I would not be silent and neither would the MSM (which they ARE in this case).

When a company holds a 90+% share in controlling who sees what content, I have a problem with that, REGARDLESS of what their political affiliation is.

The company ALSO has a huge share of the cell lhone operating system market. What are they doing to manipulate that?

JFC You're being deliberately naive.....I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

I would not be silent and neither would the MSM (which they ARE in this case).

When a company holds a 90+% share in controlling who sees what content, I have a problem with that, REGARDLESS of what their political affiliation is.

The company ALSO has a huge share of the cell lhone operating system market. What are they doing to manipulate that?

JFC You're being deliberately naive.....I hope.

You know how on your phone, when you open up chrome, you get all these news links and what not?  Every time I click those three dots to bring up the "Not interested in..." options, I click on "Not interested in..." when it comes to liberal sites like CNN, MSNBC, etc.  You know what they replace them with?  Huff Post, NYT, etc.  When I click on "Not interested in...", I get Vox, WAPO, etc.  They KEEP forcing liberal options and I never get Breitbart, or Campus Reform, etc.

 

Anyone who says that Google isn't trying to manipulate people are kidding themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Kanil said:

.  If they had been biased the other direction, you'd be silent.

Like you're doing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

I would not be silent and neither would the MSM (which they ARE in this case).

When a company holds a 90+% share in controlling who sees what content, I have a problem with that, REGARDLESS of what their political affiliation is.

The company ALSO has a huge share of the cell lhone operating system market. What are they doing to manipulate that?

JFC You're being deliberately naive.....I hope.

Do you have the same problem with the other forms of media? Basically a half dozen guys pretty much own TV, radio, and print media in this country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Do you have the same problem with the other forms of media? Basically a half dozen guys pretty much own TV, radio, and print media in this country. 

Does the phrase “Fake News” ring a bell? Yeah we have a problem with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×