361d
@wildgrass said"Studies have shown"
Studies have shown that even before Elon took over the Twitter algorithm is biased towards conservative viewpoints.
It's a myth that these tech companies only shadowban conservatives.
That's funny.
You do realize we're in a thread based on a study that has shown Google is stealing elections.
There have been a few people skeptical, and at least some skepticism is understandable. For example, consider the following quote from someone who did not automatically believe all studies...
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.
I've seen no details about this study you cite, although I think I recall someone making the claim. I have a pretty good math background. Can you provide me all the data and statistics used to prove Twitter was biased toward Conservatives. On it's surface, the claim sounds absurd. But I can be convinced with rigorous data.
361d
@techsouth saidThat YouTube link you posted wasn't a study and didn't show that. You had one guy claiming that without presenting any evidence or explanation of methods. Not a study, just an assertion.
"Studies have shown"
That's funny.
You do realize we're in a thread based on a study that has shown Google is stealing elections.
There have been a few people skeptical, and at least some skepticism is understandable. For example, consider the following quote from someone who did not automatically believe all studies...
[b]I watched your whole video. How did dr ...[text shortened]... onservatives. On it's surface, the claim sounds absurd. But I can be convinced with rigorous data.
Conservative bias is well known and we have had the discussion on this forum in the past. You're right, it's another subject so I'll post the links in a separate thread.
361d
@vivify saidGot it.
A conspiracy theory isn't misinformation unless they're based on falsehoods, or are being treated as fact when there's no evidence for it.
Conservatives offered no evidence for the lab leak which is why it was dismissed. Joe Biden was among the first to suggest it may be true following evidence from an investigation. Key word here: evidence.
Are you proud that one ...[text shortened]... ide is rife with misinformation and your side gets banned from platforms as a result. Deal with it.
We'll create a "Ministry of Truth" that will decide what is true or not. Whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don't see what can go wrong.
It will be illegal to utter the phrase "China might be covering up the origins" until I've traveled to Wuhan, subpoenaed all the officials, and studied biochemistry in order to analyze virus samples. And no one can share a negative reaction to the virus that they've experienced first hand because you don't consider that "evidence".
BTW: You know a lot more about Conservative conspiracies than I. For each of the ones you specifically mention, I cannot think of a single Conservative I've interacted with personally, that have even brought them up. But there are 330 million people in the country. I'm sure you liberal puppet master will keep finding a few stupid conservatives to ridicule so you won't actually have to think about any of the real arguments.
Don't trouble yourself with this topic. Nothing to worry about. Some other person different than me brought up QAnon, so you don't have to engage your mind on this issue at all.
@techsouth said*slow clap*. That was some masterful self-pitying.
Got it.
We'll create a "Ministry of Truth" that will decide what is true or not. Whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don't see what can go wrong.
It will be illegal to utter the phrase "China might be covering up the origins" until I've traveled to Wuhan, subpoenaed all the officials, and studied biochemistry in order to analyze virus samples. And no one can ...[text shortened]... rson different than me brought up QAnon, so you don't have to engage your mind on this issue at all.
An adult response would be "You're right: us right-wingers should start presenting evidence for claims instead of baseless conspiracy theories."
You claim you're not one of those conservative nutcases who believe in crazy conspiracies...yet you fail to acknowledge it's conserves spreading those crazy conspiracies in the first place. Your side has no one to blame but itself for the stupidity it spreads and the backlash received as a result.
True or false: millions of your kind believe the 2020 election was "stolen" despite even Trump's own DOJ stating there's no evidence of widespread election fraud?
True or false, Techsouth? Or will you claim it's just a handful of dumb Republicans who believe in this conspiracy that has no evidence?
These arguments you're putting forth to avoid looking at yourself and your political affiliation is exactly what I'd expect from someone so ignorant he didn't know the Russia investigation was lead entirely by Republicans.
360d
@wildgrass saidFirst of all, it WAS a study. One can not put forth all details in a 15 minute youtube video meant for the consumption of ordinary people. But a good bit of the methodology WAS explained.
That YouTube link you posted wasn't a study and didn't show that. You had one guy claiming that without presenting any evidence or explanation of methods. Not a study, just an assertion.
Conservative bias is well known and we have had the discussion on this forum in the past. You're right, it's another subject so I'll post the links in a separate thread.
I'm going solely from memory here, they recruited numerous real users in various locations and collected "ephemeral data" generated by Google that came up while those users were browsing. Then, they compared the content of the "ephemeral data", particularly noticing trend differences between users of various political leanings. Of course, they also separated by region as well and payed particular attention to the differences, if any, that manifested themselves near an election.
Prior to watching this video, I would not have known what is meant by "ephemeral data" in regards to google content. But that was explained quite well.
They left some things out. For example, they did not explain specifically the programming methodologies used to capture data. In particular, they did not say whether it was a browser extension, a network sniffer, a video capture, or what. But being someone adept at programming myself, this does not sound like a big obstacle, nor something that they should need to present in a 15 minute video.
Also, they did not explain what kind of database technology they used. For example, did they use Microsoft SQL, Oracle, or something newer like NoSQL. But again, those are problems I would expect any technical team could solve and I would not be skeptical about their claims just because they didn't include that in a 15 minute video.
Also, they didn't give detail about their mathematical methods. A lot can be done once data has been collected, and we read studies all the time that claim "conservatives are more likely to believe X" while "liberals are more likely to believe Y". I generally accept that this can be done with data, and for the video we're talking about here, that's no different.
Tell me, specifically, what part of the methodology would you like to know that you claim was not presented?
360d
@vivify saidYou're trying to get me to chase a red-herring.
*slow clap*. That was some masterful self-pitying.
An adult response would be "You're right: us right-wingers should start presenting evidence for claims instead of baseless conspiracy theories."
You claim you're not one of those conservative nutcases who believe in crazy conspiracies...yet you fail to acknowledge it's conserves spreading those crazy conspiracies in t ...[text shortened]... t from someone so ignorant he didn't know the Russia investigation was lead entirely by Republicans.
Tell me We'll create a "Ministry of Truth" that will decide what is true or not. Whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don't see what can go wrong.
Presumably, the Ministry of Truth gets to decide what counts as evidence and what does not.
What part of that do you not agree with?
@techsouth saidRed-herring? You mean the endless examples of misinformation right-wingers push that gets them banned from platforms? You know, the very topic we're discussing?
You're trying to get me to chase a red-herring.
Tell me We'll create a "Ministry of Truth" that will decide what is true or not. Whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don't see what can go wrong.
Presumably, the Ministry of Truth gets to decide what counts as evidence and what does not.
What part of that do you not agree with?
Your "ministry of truth" tripe is a red-herring. You're trying to distract from the many examples of clearly false right-wing misinformation, like the 2020 election. And that it's your own fault for the bans you get.
In this day and age most claims can be easily fact-checked. If you don't trust Google, try Bing. Or Yahoo. Or you can can use AI like Chat GPT. There are many ways to check facts. You right wingers have no right to complain about being banned for misinformation in this age when when obtaining facts could not possibly be any easier.
360d
@techsouth saidHow did he calculate the number of people who switched their vote because of Google?
First of all, it WAS a study. One can not put forth all details in a 15 minute youtube video meant for the consumption of ordinary people. But a good bit of the methodology WAS explained.
I'm going solely from memory here, they recruited numerous real users in various locations and collected "ephemeral data" generated by Google that came up while those users were brow ...[text shortened]... specifically, what part of the methodology would you like to know that you claim was not presented?
360d
@wildgrass
https://rumble.com/v455lfq-proof-google-is-stealing-elections-w-dr.-robert-epstein.html
360d
@metal-brain saidThat's not an answer.
@wildgrass
https://rumble.com/v455lfq-proof-google-is-stealing-elections-w-dr.-robert-epstein.html
360d
This thread is going nowhere and it’s taking its bloody time in doing so.
Someone explain to me, please, how a search engine and a video app “steal” elections. Or even bloody meddle in them.
Or are donation mails also stealing elections?
Are political advertisements on TV also stealing elections?
Are debates stealing elections?
It’s bloody stupidity that’s meddling with US elections. Anyone sane would not vote for trump. Sorry. That’s just the truth of the matter.
360d
@wildgrass saidThe answer is in the video. Do you expect me to repeat what Epstein explained in detail? I cannot explain it better than he did. Why are you avoiding the answer?
That's not an answer.
360d
@shavixmir saidHow was Trump and Russia supposed to have meddled in the 2016 elections?
This thread is going nowhere and it’s taking its bloody time in doing so.
Someone explain to me, please, how a search engine and a video app “steal” elections. Or even bloody meddle in them.
Or are donation mails also stealing elections?
Are political advertisements on TV also stealing elections?
Are debates stealing elections?
It’s bloody stupidity that’s meddli ...[text shortened]... with US elections. Anyone sane would not vote for trump. Sorry. That’s just the truth of the matter.
It’s bloody stupidity that’s meddling with US elections. Right?
360d
@shavixmir saidDon't apologize for being sane.
This thread is going nowhere and it’s taking its bloody time in doing so.
Someone explain to me, please, how a search engine and a video app “steal” elections. Or even bloody meddle in them.
Or are donation mails also stealing elections?
Are political advertisements on TV also stealing elections?
Are debates stealing elections?
It’s bloody stupidity that’s meddli ...[text shortened]... with US elections. Anyone sane would not vote for trump. Sorry. That’s just the truth of the matter.
The morons here need to apologize for screwing the rest of us over.
360d
@shavixmir said"Are political advertisements on TV also stealing elections?"
This thread is going nowhere and it’s taking its bloody time in doing so.
Someone explain to me, please, how a search engine and a video app “steal” elections. Or even bloody meddle in them.
Or are donation mails also stealing elections?
Are political advertisements on TV also stealing elections?
Are debates stealing elections?
It’s bloody stupidity that’s meddli ...[text shortened]... with US elections. Anyone sane would not vote for trump. Sorry. That’s just the truth of the matter.
Are foreign news agency advertisements on the internet also stealing elections?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/26/twitter-bans-ads-from-russia-today-and-sputnik-over-election-interference
https://www.wglt.org/2017-10-12/kremlin-backed-tv-to-remove-u-s-ads-making-light-of-election-meddling