Google Is STEALING Elections

@vivify said
If that were true Hillary would've won in 2016.

Is it an axiom of your belief system that identical efforts and identical know-how persist over any decade long period of time?

You realize AI and general analytics have come a long way in 8 years don't you? Likewise, since Trump's 2016 win was a big surprise, it seems very likely that opposition forces may "up their game". Clearly you don't think people will change behavior after an undesired outcome, as you have just admitted to believing.

Since I don't share your axioms, I am not convinced that you've made a sound logical deduction. But at least we understand the basis of our disagreement.

You probably won't watch this, but here it is: YouTube

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/leaked-google-video-shows-execs-165820773.html

I humbly await for a red-herring.

@techsouth said
Google can easily move the needle 5 points in any national election.

Can it? How?
And is that stealing an election?

@shavixmir said
Can it? How?
And is that stealing an election?

See reply to vivify.

It's probably not technically illegal, but seems pretty unethical considering their near monopoly status. Surely if they were moving the needle to help Republicans, the Democrats would scream bloody murder.

@techsouth said
Is it an axiom of your belief system that identical efforts and identical know-how persist over any decade long period of time?

You realize AI and general analytics have come a long way in 8 years don't you? Likewise, since Trump's 2016 win was a big surprise, it seems very likely that opposition forces may "up their game". Clearly you don't think people will change b ...[text shortened]... .yahoo.com/video/leaked-google-video-shows-execs-165820773.html

I humbly await for a red-herring.

You said Google is stealing elections by influencing voters by a point margin of around 5 percent. That seems quite unlikely.

Trump voters don't get their news from Google. In fact they are notorious for hating mainstream news outlets, which is mostly what you'll get through Google. Right-wingers get their information from conservative social media, not Google search results.

If conservatives relied on Google for information they wouldn't be notorious for outlandish conspiracy theories with no basis in fact.

Google has zero effect on right-wingers and leftists already use the media outlets from Google search results, like the BBC, Bloomberg, etc. So your assertion of Google's ability to shift voter opinion by 5 points has no basis in reality.

But let's throw you a bone. If Google can do so: how do you know this is deliberate?

@techsouth said
Is it an axiom of your belief system that identical efforts and identical know-how persist over any decade long period of time?

You realize AI and general analytics have come a long way in 8 years don't you? Likewise, since Trump's 2016 win was a big surprise, it seems very likely that opposition forces may "up their game". Clearly you don't think people will change b ...[text shortened]... .yahoo.com/video/leaked-google-video-shows-execs-165820773.html

I humbly await for a red-herring.

Weird video. At no point does he explain how Google can swing elections, or how this effect might be measured.

We've got links for days on the RHP forum, right? Who among anyone would switch their vote based on what Google says?

@wildgrass said
Weird video. At no point does he explain how Google can swing elections.

We've got links for days on the RHP forum, right? Who among anyone would switch their vote based on what Google says?

Is it your belief that heated debates here on RHP are happening with undecided voters? Your imagination is very small.

On this we can agree, neither Google, nor RHP debate forums are going to change the vote of a MAGA Republican nor a never-Trumper.

Another class of voter are the uncommitted voters. Those that might not vote, depending on how they feel that day. Do you think Google has a very good guess as to which of them are more likely to vote Republican and which are more likely to vote Democrat? (and Facebook for that matter).

It would take very little to move the vote a few percentage points by encouraging turnout more for one side than another.

@techsouth said
Is it your belief that heated debates here on RHP are happening with undecided voters? Your imagination is very small.

On this we can agree, neither Google, nor RHP debate forums are going to change the vote of a MAGA Republican nor a never-Trumper.

Another class of voter are the uncommitted voters. Those that might not vote, depending on how they feel that day. Do ...[text shortened]... ttle to move the vote a few percentage points by encouraging turnout more for one side than another.

I watched your whole video. How did dr. Epstein measure this effect? What was the specific means in which Google switched votes by 14 percent?

From what I watched, Epstein is either a terrible communicator or he is completely making it up.

Maybe you can explain it.

@vivify said
You said Google is stealing elections by influencing voters by a point margin of around 5 percent. That seems quite unlikely.

Trump voters don't get their news from Google. In fact they are notorious for hating mainstream news outlets, which is mostly what you'll get through Google. Right-wingers get their information from conservative social media, not Google search res ...[text shortened]... in reality.

But let's throw you a bone. If Google can do so: how do you know this is deliberate?

Interesting, you heap insults on Conservatives, in the same post where you show an absolute dismal understanding of the issue hand.

First of all, I didn't say Google was stealing elections. I said Google CAN move a national election by 5 percentage points. The fact that you cannot (or won't) distinguish the difference in the statement I made and the statement you said I made shows you aren't a serious thinker.

But I will agree with part of what you claim. MAGA voters would not be swayed by a small bias in Google. Neither would "never-Trumpers".

You do realize there are millions of "swing voters", even though we probably don't hear much from them here. Google has a large effect on what they see or don't see.

And there is a lot of opportunity to influence turn-out. Not everyone votes. Google knows how old we are, what kind of videos we like, and how much pornography we watch. They certainly can make a very good guess as to how we will vote. It's up to them how frequently they want to remind us to vote (or register to vote).

About the bone you threw me. I don't doubt Google CAN do it. I've seen credible allegations that make the case that they ARE, but I know how deceptive those claims can be, so I am not fully convinced. But if there is not a deliberate attempt to affect the outcome, I would not criticize them. But of course, for a long time Twitter denied they were shadow banning people, but it was proved otherwise after Musk bought the company.

@wildgrass said
I watched your whole video. How did dr. Epstein measure this effect? What was the specific means in which Google switched votes by 14 percent?

From what I watched, Epstein is either a terrible communicator or he is completely making it up.

Maybe you can explain it.

Did you catch the part about "Ephemeral data"?

The best that one could hope for is to get a rough estimate of how much Google has or can move the needle. I suggested that they could easily move the needle 5 points. Whether 14 percent is true or not, I am not convinced enough that I intend to back a claim that large.

@techsouth said
Did you catch the part about "Ephemeral data"?

The best that one could hope for is to get a rough estimate of how much Google has or can move the needle. I suggested that they could easily move the needle 5 points. Whether 14 percent is true or not, I am not convinced enough that I intend to back a claim that large.

Yes. "ephemeral data" is a term that he used, but that wasn't any explanation of how he is calculating his numbers. If this doctor has an actual method to measure Google's influence on swing voters, why didn't he mention what it is?

@techsouth said
Interesting, you heap insults on Conservatives, in the same post where you show an absolute dismal understanding of the issue hand.

What insult? That conservatives are notoriously prone to conspiracy theories? This is indisputable fact. See QAnon, Alex Jones, Metal Brain, etc., all of whom are infamous for peddling conspiracy theories, all of whom are right-wing.

I don't doubt Google CAN do it. I've seen credible allegations that make the case that they ARE, but I know how deceptive those claims can be, so I am not fully convinced. But if there is not a deliberate attempt to affect the outcome, I would not criticize them. But of course, for a long time Twitter denied they were shadow banning people, but it was proved otherwise after Musk bought the company.

Twitter banned people based on misinformation not political affiliation.

Hopefully Google as a search engine isn't being manipulated but we never know. Google is a multi-billion dollar business that's all about profits so it wouldn't surprise me if they manipulated election results (or anything else) in order to suit them. All I ask is for reasonable evidence from credible sources.

@wildgrass said
Yes. "ephemeral data" is a term that he used, but that wasn't any explanation of how he is calculating his numbers. If this doctor has an actual method to measure Google's influence on swing voters, why didn't he mention what it is?

It was a 15 minute video (or something like that).

Seems like it would be a difficult statically analysis to develop and even harder to explain. But we know it's possible make a good estimate because it's way easier than estimating the temperature rise on Earth due to fossil fuel burning. If we can measure the average temperature of Earth, we can certainly measure Google's influence. I, for one, believe in science.

Obviously we should have some skepticism without knowing details of the methodology and at this point, at least I don't have that information.

But, I should ask. If it was proved that Google was intentionally trying to move the election needle by manipulating ephemeral data, would it be necessary to have a precise measure of results before we insist that Google stop doing that? (I'm not saying it has been proved). Or would it make more sense to oppose such activity from near monopolies? If Google is found to be sending voting reminders to presumed Biden voters, but not sending voting reminders to presumed Trump voters, do we need to know if their influence is 0.1% or 10% before we tell them they should stop?

Also, based on the culture at Google and the incredible level of power they have to shift public sentiment, the accusations in the video are at least credible. If we have credible accusations, does it make sense to investigate further?

@vivify said
What insult? That conservatives are notoriously prone to conspiracy theories? This is indisputable fact. See QAnon, Alex Jones, Metal Brain, etc., all of whom are infamous for peddling conspiracy theories, all of whom are right-wing.

[quote]I don't doubt Google CAN do it. I've seen credible allegations that make the case that they ARE, but I know how deceptive those cl ...[text shortened]... r anything else) in order to suit them. All I ask is for reasonable evidence from credible sources.

Twitter banned people based on misinformation not political affiliation.

It is nearly impossible to make people believe what they don't want to believe.

There exists no objective measure of "misinformation", especially considering that the vast majority of false information is allowed to be freely posted on social media. Only a tiny subset of "false" information gets you banned, and that is decided by humans. I'm sure that most of Twitter's actions were defensible. But you are quite naïve if you think partisan humans aren't highly inconsistent in their application of "misinformation" standards.

The Babylon Bee got banned for naming Rachel Levin "man of the year" as satire. Jordan Peterson got banned for "dead-naming". James Lindsey got banned for using the term "groomer". All of these are things that should be allowed in the public sphere of national debate.

@techsouth said
It was a 15 minute video (or something like that).

Seems like it would be a difficult statically analysis to develop and even harder to explain. But we know it's possible make a good estimate because it's way easier than estimating the temperature rise on Earth due to fossil fuel burning. If we can measure the average temperature of Earth, we can certainly measure Goog ...[text shortened]... are at least credible. If we have credible accusations, does it make sense to investigate further?

A thermometer measures temperature, and a climate scientist can tell you exactly how to measure CO2 contributions. You're saying a scientist can't explain how he measures the percentage swing in who votes for who based on algorithmic Google search hits? Maybe it's because he can't actually measure that.

You can measure the political leanings of websites and who gets shown what information, but that's not impacting elections. The big tech algorithms are all programmed to show you things you like. They want you to feeeeeel that dopamine hit. Hard. Click the article, get the ad revenue, so they can add another waterslide to their silicon valley headquarters.

These tech companies are less biased than you think. They dont care. They show you what makes you feel good.

@wildgrass said
A thermometer measures temperature, and a climate scientist can tell you exactly how to measure CO2 contributions. You're saying a scientist can't explain how he measures the percentage swing in who votes for who based on algorithmic Google search hits? Maybe it's because he can't actually measure that.

You can measure the political leanings of websites and who gets show ...[text shortened]... ch companies are less biased than you think. They dont care. They show you what makes you feel good.

They dont care. They show you what makes you feel good.

You might be right. But the fact that you assert this with certainty diminishes your credibility.

It was estimated that $14.4 billion was spent on the 2020 election. Political divides run deep. Some believe that one of the candidates was basically Hitler and needed to be stopped to save our country.

And you're telling me in that context, not a single person thought "hey, maybe we can make a few tweaks to an algorithm and pick up a few votes"? Or perhaps someone in charge of stopping disinformation allowed their own personal bias in? (Maybe Google hires from the subset of population that are totally unbiased). And you have already ruled out that that either happened or will ever happen in the future?

And you think the person that made the video left some steps out?