Google munipulated millions of votes in 2016

[Dreadnaught1968]

She has plenty of time for that these days...

 

[playtime]

She has plenty of time for that these days...

she enjoying her life with no worries about impeachment or prison....

& donny? lol, he doesn't look too good these days & his syphilitic brain is deteriorating even more by the day. i wouldn't doubt if he strokes out whilst shoving a big mac down his gullet & tweeting about crowd sizes.....................

 

[healthmyths]

Unless there was a porn star named Hillary, I doubt these google searches meant as much as people argue. It is just as silly as the great russian conspiracy to rig our election.

The results are obvious. MSM articles are biased and Google will show those biased Trump anti-immigrant articles BEFORE showing
results Trump anti-illegal immigrant articles.
That's what this shows but I guess you don't comprehend search algorithms.

People will click on what they want to click on and I know full well how those algorithms work. Spend 30 minutes with a google sales rep and you will know all you need to know about them.

Then if you are so knowledgeable you should understand the built in bias at Google against Trump.
In fact
Google Executives cried...
Breitbart Posts Leaked Video Of Google Leadership Reacting To 2016 Election With Tears, Fear

Google has 'political agenda,' wants to make sure Trump loses 2020 election, says ex-employee
Google has 'political agenda,' wants to make sure Trump loses 2020 election, says ex-employee

I know that 1) they are in the business of making money 2) former employees are inherently unreliable when attacking their bosses 3) people are going to click on whatever headline fuels their bias which is why people call it "clickbait" 4) google is going to refer people first to sites that use adsense for remnant advertising and 4) I will say to you the same essential thing I say to democrats when they start mouthing off about Russia and facebook, show me a person who said "I was going to vote for Trump until I saw this google link in my news search," and I will take you seriously.

Geez are you stupid! Do you really think the majority of people make their political decisions based on ONE Google Link? Oh wait... you said show me one person! Well it TAKES repetition of exposures (if you understand advertising) to influence a decision. NOT one link will do it.
Hence I've used the "Trump Anti-immigrant" Google search as the example and I've done it almost a dozen times. The searches are almost all are between 80,000 to 140,000 results. So if you are cognizant of how repetition influences actions you are a perfect example.
At this point you haven't seen as much as I've in Google searches I'm certain, or else you would be agreeing with me that Google IS influencing as does the MSM!

 

[mdk]

GoOgLe MaDe mE VoTe FOr HiLlArY!

RuSsIa MaDe mE VoTe FoR tRuMp!

 

[shockedcanadian]

Check it out, started 3 hours ago with the below tweet. You can all check it out yourself if you want to. Compelling stuff, and important for free elections everywhere.






Dr. Robert Epstein

@DrREpstein
·
3h

Tweet storm starting now - getting interrupted from time to time by calls from reporters... I've been caught in the middle of an exchange of tweets between 2 media titans,
@HillaryClinton
&
@realDonaldTrump
. #Trump's tweet was slightly wrong. #Hillary's tweet was shameful.

 

[Norman]

As Trump laid it out during the debates. Hillary would lose dishonestly. And right afterwards her fans did what she accused of the "deplorables" and did not accept the election result... which still goes on to this day.

 

[FA_Q2]

Google is a threat to democracy according to far leftist Robert Epstein

how many times are you sheep going to post this quacks work?

This is like the 15th thread on this guy

A quack who is well respect in his field? all because you said so? lol He said he was far left and a Clinton supporter but he cared more about the country that any political party.

Yes, and his field is psychology...not statistics.

And?

He was not testifying on statistical analysis, he was testifying on behavioral influences. That certainly requires statistics but it is also clearly and squarely in his field. That really is not a valid criticism.

That his results have not been replicated is certainly a problem though. It does make you wonder how much influence these companies can wield.

 

[Lakhota]

Check it out, started 3 hours ago with the below tweet. You can all check it out yourself if you want to. Compelling stuff, and important for free elections everywhere.






Dr. Robert Epstein

@DrREpstein
·
3h

Tweet storm starting now - getting interrupted from time to time by calls from reporters... I've been caught in the middle of an exchange of tweets between 2 media titans,
@HillaryClinton
&
@realDonaldTrump
. #Trump's tweet was slightly wrong. #Hillary's tweet was shameful.

Holy shit, this is like the third or fourth thread on this debunked lie.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Check it out, started 3 hours ago with the below tweet. You can all check it out yourself if you want to. Compelling stuff, and important for free elections everywhere.






Dr. Robert Epstein

@DrREpstein
·
3h

Tweet storm starting now - getting interrupted from time to time by calls from reporters... I've been caught in the middle of an exchange of tweets between 2 media titans,
@HillaryClinton
&
@realDonaldTrump
. #Trump's tweet was slightly wrong. #Hillary's tweet was shameful.

Holy shit, this is like the third or fourth thread on this debunked lie.

Debunked? He just had his papers published at Oxford University.

 

[Lakhota]

Has been debunked.

 

[Lakhota]

Has been debunked.

 

[Lakhota]

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

 

[Lakhota]

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

 

[Lakhota]

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

 

[Lesh]

Sorry...it's bullshit

 

[shockedcanadian]

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

From his tweet storm today, among many posts. He also compared the results with Bing and Yahoo and found no such bias. Read his tweetstorm, the bias is clear, even google employees on her team.

I measured substantial pro-#Hillary bias in #Google's search results by preserving & analyzing 13,207 election-related searches & the 98,044 web pages linked to those searches.

 

[Siete]

The new report that Trump says shows Google 'manipulated' 2.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton is a 2-year-old study that a San Diego psychologist based on 95 people

Trumpdrones are crying about Hillary losing -

YOU CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP !

 

[Lesh]

In the Monday interview, Epstein rejected Trump's claim that Google "manipulated" votes in 2016. He said he does not have firm evidence even that Google intentionally manipulated its search algorithm or results, let alone votes themselves.
Donald Trump falsely claims Google 'manipulated' millions of 2016 votes: Fact check - CNNPolitics

 

[FA_Q2]

A quack who is well respect in his field? all because you said so? lol He said he was far left and a Clinton supporter but he cared more about the country that any political party.

Yes, and his field is psychology...not statistics.

He was the expert for what he was questioned about.

Nope, he was not.

So you can show that he is incorrect?

His results have never been duplicated, which is a red flag in the field. Replication is vital.

His results are tied to a paper he published two years ago in which he came to this conclusion:

If people have a choice of two politicians they’ve never heard of and searches resulted in almost all positive toward one and negative toward the other, then most people will support the one with the positive results. This is sort of like "well no shit".

The problem is that he took those results and tried to tie them to the 2016 election, but in the 2016 election the race was not between two people that nobody had ever heard of, so his first paper should not have been the basis for his second, but it was.

That also sounds like mitigating factors, such as when one politician EARNS more negative coverage, are missing as well.

That the news effects the election is not in question, it SHOULD. Coverage on published work is usually absolute garbage to boot. Last week tonight had a good segment on the coverage and use of single studies like this.

 

[Lesh]

In the Monday interview, Epstein rejected Trump's claim that Google "manipulated" votes in 2016. He said he does not have firm evidence even that Google intentionally manipulated its search algorithm or results, let alone votes themselves.
Donald Trump falsely claims Google 'manipulated' millions of 2016 votes: Fact check - CNNPolitics