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

[TBayXXXVII 2,118]

Just curious what people think...

If this said "Expert testifies Conservative Yahoo moved 2 million to 10 million votes to Trump in 2016...".  What's the MSM & Liberal reaction?

 

I think it's obvious that there would be Congressional Hearings and FBI investigations.

[Kanil 519]

31 minutes ago, drobeski said:

Like you're doing

I'm actually consistently anti-regulation.  As a matter of fact, I'm on record here in multiple places praising President Trump for killing as many dumb regulations as he has.

[Kanil 519]

44 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.

So it sounds like your argument is that they should be a utility and regulated as such?  I've said multiple times in this thread I can understand that argument.

I do not agree with regulating a business outside of making sure they follow the constitutional laws in place.

[Kanil 519]

11 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Just curious what people think...

If this said "Expert testifies Conservative Yahoo moved 2 million to 10 million votes to Trump in 2016...".  What's the MSM & Liberal reaction?

 

I think it's obvious that there would be Congressional Hearings and FBI investigations.

Agreed.  Democrats love to regulate anything and everything.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

2 hours 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. 

I have spoken out on the MSM not reporting news.

However, the news isn't calling itself a search engine for the internet used by BILLIONS  and hiding stuff that they don't like politically. 

[Cdub100 3,384]

20 hours ago, nobody said:

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.

This right here is a great post.