Democrat/Google Cartel: Google letting Harris campaign edit headlines

[Care4all]

They paid to edit headlines.

Yes. That's shady AF

Trump makes cliche political ads about himself. Harris manipulates headlines to fool the populace.

The news or opinion articles are not changed, the sponsor puts their own catchy headline, but the click goes to the article itself....with the news outlet's headline and content.....

Trying to get people to read the news or opinion piece, is not harmful, is it???

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The news or opinion articles are not changed, the sponsor puts their own catchy headline, but the click goes to the article itself....with the news outlet's headline and content.....

Trying to get people to read the news or opinion piece, is not harmful, is it???

Did you never stop and ask: Why is a presidential campaign editing news headlines?

If we live in a fair process in regards to media, why would the edits be necessary?

Ever opened a history book? Heres a spoiler: the people that do this are the bad guys

 

[justoffal]

Google sucks.

Big time.

Musk to the rescue

 

[Care4all]

Did you never stop and ask: Why is a presidential campaign editing news headlines?

If we live in a fair process in regards to media, why would the edits be necessary?

Ever opened a history book? Heres a spoiler: the people that do this are the bad guys

All they are doing is paying google for these news articles, to be spread out to users when they do a search on a topic, so users have an opportunity to click on them and read the articles which the campaign paid to have at the top of the search, noted as Sponsors.

Anytime you do a Google search on a topic, the first 5 or so links usually are sponsored links, (paid for by sponsors to put the links ahead of others.)

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Anytime you do a Google search on a topic, the first 5 or so links usually are sponsored links, (paid for by sponsors to put the links ahead of others.)

Yes, and those are put there with the intent to deceive people into believing they are genuine, made by people with independent purposes.

That’s shady as well, but only has to do with link clicks for monetizing. Meanwhile, this has to do with manipulation of the public. Many people absorb news by headlines only, we know this from observation. So we have the Democrats paying to write the news to a large group of people, and their intent is to deceive those who search in google.

That should be frowned upon, and is crossing a bridge too far IMO. They already get insane support from the MSM, but now they want to write it themselves as objective pro-Harris propaganda. You ought to oppose such authoritarianism and totalitarianism methods. But you’re not. A political party wanting to control headlines should raise red flags to anyone, if you ever read a history book

 

[Slade3200]

Manipulating people? I’m not sure, but it’s not a flex to try to admit you need manipulation to have success in politics

No I said media not manipulation. Why do you think the liberals are so much better and effective at media than the right?

I listed to both right and left wing media and there is far more dishonesty, exaggeration, distortions and hyperbole in right wing media than left. Faaaar more.

So perhaps left wing media and MSM is more effective because it’s more honest?

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, and those are put there with the intent to deceive people into believing they are genuine, made by people with independent purposes.

That’s shady as well, but only has to do with link clicks for monetizing. Meanwhile, this has to do with manipulation of the public. Many people absorb news by headlines only, we know this from observation. So we have the Democrats paying to write the news to a large group of people, and their intent is to deceive those who search in google.

That should be frowned upon, and is crossing a bridge too far IMO. They already get insane support from the MSM, but now they want to write it themselves as objective pro-Harris propaganda. You ought to oppose such authoritarianism and totalitarianism methods. But you’re not. A political party wanting to control headlines should raise red flags to anyone, if you ever read a history book

. Each and every one of those adds is clearly marked "SPONSORED"
I don't like wading through all that crap myself. Sometimes the first two pages are nothing but sponsored adds. You can say it sucks, but they are up front about it and aren't there to deceive anybody.

 

[Care4all]

Yes, and those are put there with the intent to deceive people into believing they are genuine, made by people with independent purposes.

That’s shady as well, but only has to do with link clicks for monetizing. Meanwhile, this has to do with manipulation of the public. Many people absorb news by headlines only, we know this from observation. So we have the Democrats paying to write the news to a large group of people, and their intent is to deceive those who search in google.

That should be frowned upon, and is crossing a bridge too far IMO. They already get insane support from the MSM, but now they want to write it themselves as objective pro-Harris propaganda. You ought to oppose such authoritarianism and totalitarianism methods. But you’re not. A political party wanting to control headlines should raise red flags to anyone, if you ever read a history book

I agree that the paid for advertising sponsor practice in Google searches, that puts "unearned" products or even stories in the news or issues like climate change stories or ads, ahead of other things ranked by their actual impressions or views, seems very unfair.....

Just another money stream for these platforms, that ruins the internet experience and minimizes the good we could get from the net in to a world of influence and intrusion that we didn't ask for....as far as I am concerned.

They are not writing the articles, the articles are written by various news agencies that the Harris Campaign consider favorable for Harris of which they do NOT change or rewrite. The rewrite of the headline, usually never written by the reporter writing and researching the article in the first place, is written by HEADLINE editors or Copywriters who know what position of words, and words to use, that will draw more views due to algorithms in place by the different search engines....it's an art, and technical.

The Harris sponsorship and shortened Headline change, did not depict anything false. It simply gave focus to the algorithms, who they want the sponsored ad shown to.... is my understanding of the process....

What sponsorship does is...as an example, place an NPR article on what the user is searching, before say the Fox News article on the subject, In the results.

For me, when searching, I never go in to sponsored links, even when they are first in my search results. When it says sponsored, I just skip over them...