Google manipulated over 2.6-10 MILLION votes to Hillary in 2016

4,731 Views | 48 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Flaming Moderate
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And they could do it again for up to 15 Million in 2020 w/out a paper trail.
Hillary's #1 financial supporter in 2016 was Google.

This is an interesting listen especially around 3 min.
These companies were over confident in 2016. They were much more aggressive in 2018 and in 2020 "you can bet that all these companies are going ALL OUT and the methods they are using are invisible and subliminal. More powerful than he's ever seen in 40+ yrs in behavioral sciences.

OldBurlyBear86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Spooky
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There has not been and will never be such a thing as a fully trustworthy information, news, or social media corporation.

We can't be gullible sheep.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But, But, but.... Russia!!!!

Trump!!!!!

Russia!

fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?
robby44
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump alleges Google manipulated voters against him

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/457953-trump-alleges-google-manipulated-voters-against-him

TheHill

TECHNOLOGY August 19, 2019 - 12:53 PM EDT Trump alleges Google manipulated voters against him

Trump alleges Google manipulated voters against him

TheHill.com

BY HARPER NEIDIG

President Trump alleged Monday that Google manipulated millions of voters into supporting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, saying the company "should be sued" in his latest attack on the tech giant.

The president in a tweet referenced the work of a controversial psychologist who has claimed to have found evidence that Google's search algorithms have been influencing voters.

"Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election!" Trump wrote. "This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought!"

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election! This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought! @JudicialWatch

115K

10:52 AM - Aug 19, 2019

Trump appears to be referring to the work of Robert Epstein, a researcher with a group based in Vista, Calif., called the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. Epstein testified in a Senate hearing in June about what he calls the "Search Engine Manipulation Effect" and claimed that his research shows Google's search results pushed at least 2.6 million people to vote for Clinton in 2016.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai was asked about Epstein's work last year when he testified before a House panel and said the company had investigated it and pointed to issues with the study's methodology.

In a statement on Monday, a Google spokesperson called Epstein's claim "debunked," pointing out it has been circulating for three years.

"This researcher's inaccurate claim has been debunked since it was made in 2016," the spokesperson said. "As we stated then, we have never re-ranked or altered search results to manipulate political sentiment."

"Our goal is to always provide people with access to high quality, relevant information for their queries, without regard to political viewpoint," they added.

In 2017, Google dismissed Epstein's research, telling The Washington Post that it amounts to "nothing more than a poorly constructed conspiracy theory."

Conservatives have increasingly hurled allegations that social media companies like Facebook and Google are censoring right-wing voices, though they've offered little evidence to support their suspicions.

Google and others have all denied that politics plays any role in how they moderate content.

Trump's latest attack comes as he is rehashing unfounded allegations of massive voter fraud in the 2016 election.

Earlier Wednesday, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission doubled down on her call for Trump to stop making claims election fraud unless he can show evidence it happened.

"Facts matter, and people of America need to be able to believe what their leaders tell them," Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, said on CNN's "New Day."

Weintraub sent a letter to Trump on Saturday demanding he provide evidence to support his claim that he would have won New Hampshire's electoral votes in 2016 if not for voter fraud, or stop repeating the accusation.



PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump is just shooting **** out there and naturally like catfish in a feeding pond posters here are gobbling it up.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.


If our electorate is so ignorant that it can be manipulated in such a manner.....

our country is doomed anyway .
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Cool.

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?
bearassnekkid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Cool.

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?
Lot of people seemed to think Russia "influenced" voters and affected the election. I suppose you think that's plausible but not Google, right?
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearassnekkid said:

fubar said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Cool.

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?
Lot of people seemed to think Russia "influenced" voters and affected the election. I supposed you think that's plausible but not Google, right?

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

bearassnekkid said:

fubar said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Cool.

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?
Lot of people seemed to think Russia "influenced" voters and affected the election. I supposed you think that's plausible but not Google, right?

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?


You were given a fair question. May we assume by your answer that you never believed Russia was capable of influencing voters either?

I wish it were true that there aren't many voters influenced by such shenanigans.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Cool.

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?


LOL!!! Imagine that. You suggesting someone else is stupid. Its like Dom DeLuise giving out diet advice. LOL!!!
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.


If our electorate is so ignorant that it can be manipulated in such a manner.....

our country is doomed anyway .


Do you really believe propaganda doesn't work? I mean just look at all the people who buy into global warming...
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EatMoreSalmon said:

fubar said:

bearassnekkid said:

fubar said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Cool.

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?
Lot of people seemed to think Russia "influenced" voters and affected the election. I supposed you think that's plausible but not Google, right?

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?


You were given a fair question. May we assume by your answer that you never believed Russia was capable of influencing voters either?

I wish it were true that there aren't many voters influenced by such shenanigans.
You seem to want me to answer, but you don't care that nobody has answered mine. So I'll ask you: Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?

There is abundant evidence that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election to Trump's benefit. Did it cause any voter(s) to change his/her vote? Perhaps. But I'm not stupid enough to put a figure on it. I've seen no reputable source that has tried.

In contrast, we have the ... ummmm ... "evidence" that Google attempted to influence voters. And based on that "evidence" we have this dude from the OP and the President of the United States putting their figures as to its success. Trump, in fact, says it's even more than dude claimed. I find the evidence proffered that Google did anything at all to be flimsy. At best.

I've answered. I'll ask one more time. Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

fubar said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Cool.

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?


LOL!!! Imagine that. You suggesting someone else is stupid. Its like Dom DeLuise giving out diet advice. LOL!!!
EMS doesn't like it when people don't answer the question posed.

And yes, if you buy into this, I am indeed calling you stupid.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Trump is just shooting **** out there and naturally like catfish in a feeding pond posters here are gobbling it up.


Google lies every time they go to capital hill. There are now leaked documents and whistle blowers and evidence they are manipulating search results. To say otherwise and to try and blame Trump is elementary.

It's a proven fact they are doing it.

How many times must u all be proven wrong before you will admit there is 100% bias from these social media companies. Pathetic
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Cool.

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?


LOL!!! Imagine that. You suggesting someone else is stupid. Its like Dom DeLuise giving out diet advice. LOL!!!
EMS doesn't like it when people don't answer the question posed.

And yes, if you buy into this, I am indeed calling you stupid.


I know. That's what is so hilarious.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The researcher made clear that Trump's claims misrepresent his research. The research purported to show a pro.Clinton bias in search results. There was no evidence that Google tried to create the bias.

I have no idea how "biased" search results happen or how they convert votes. Neither does Trump and neither does the researcher.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

Canada2017 said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.


If our electorate is so ignorant that it can be manipulated in such a manner.....

our country is doomed anyway .


Do you really believe propaganda doesn't work? I mean just look at all the people who buy into global warming...


chuckle

My friend not everything we disagree with is propaganda.
midgett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Results can be manipulated by using key words to make links appear higher in the search results (more likely you'll select one of those) or disappear altogether (you never get the information).

Sadly, it works and companies pay big money to get their (product) information to appear first.

Rather than the most relevant results appearing first it may be who puts the most $$$ in Google's pockets (though often it appears first as a paid ad - though the ad identifier is pretty small).

I can't believe we are discussing if this is a thing or not.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The entire SEO industry is built on manipulating search results to maximize certain outcomes and influence the perspective of information. Why is it so outlandish to believe that information cannot be manipulated for political purposes? We see it on our TV screens and read it in articles, the shaping of information. The medium of data searching, thanks to concepts and algorithms built around originally commercial data manipulation, are now becoming extensions of information framing as well.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

The entire SEO industry is built on manipulating search results to maximize certain outcomes and influence the perspective of information. Why is it so outlandish to believe that information cannot be manipulated for political purposes? We see it on our TV screens and read it in articles, the shaping of information. The medium of data searching, thanks to concepts and algorithms built around originally commercial data manipulation, are now becoming extensions of information framing as well.
This. It's amazing how naive some people are about the power Google has.
bearassnekkid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

bearassnekkid said:

fubar said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.
Cool.

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?
Lot of people seemed to think Russia "influenced" voters and affected the election. I supposed you think that's plausible but not Google, right?

Are you actually stupid enough to buy into this? I know that some of the usual suspects here are, but are you?
Bogus question.

No, I'm not stupid. Yes, I think Google is more than capable of trying to influence voters. No, I have no idea whether they actually did. Yes, I think it's funny that people took it as gospel that Russia "stole" the election for Trump, but are immediately dismissive of the notion that Google could attempt to do the same thing in the other direction.
codyorr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The difference between Russia and Google:

- Russia made memes with unsubstantiated or overtly false claims and our dumb relatives shared them like crazy because, hey if Kermit the Frog says it's true, it must be true.

- To my knowledge, Google actively or passively deprioritized websites in their search results that made unsubstantiated or overtly false claims about Hillary Clinton, like she was a part of a pedo-ring inside the basement of a pizza restaurant.

Unfortunately, the share of negative and unverified "news" about Clinton was probably higher than the share of negative and substantiated news, while the share of negative and unverified "news" about Trump was probably lower than the share of negative and substantiated news. Even if Google just deprioritized unverified "news" stories, that could create the appearance of bias.

Now did Google go beyond this? I have no idea. Maybe.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's difficult to parse through a topic like this and produce useful results,

I certainly agree that Google manipulated searches during the 2016 campaign to produce results favorable results for Clinton and unfavorable for Trump. We see that now; just google-search 'Hillary Clinton' or 'Donald Trump' and note what kind of links are offered.

But it's a real stretch to say Google changed votes. There were roughly 136.6 million votes cast in the 2016 Presidential election; if 2.6 million votes were allegedly, switched, then roughly 2% of all voters made decision primarily on Google changing their mind. If 10 million were switched, then over seven percent of all voters primarily made their decision because of Google's search results.


I don't see that. Of the top of my grey head, I'd say half of all voters were influenced somewhat by Google, but only in terms of reinforcing opinion or confirming a point. I think half of those people would still dig deeper than just taking what they got on the first screen. I know when I do a search I often scroll through multiple screens, especially if I remember seeing or hearing something and want more details. This is important, because while Google juggle the order of results, I do not believe they erase data or refuse to provide it. As a result, I think perhaps 5% of those who use Google as a primary source for decisions, or 5% of 50% of 50% of all voters could be subject to such manipulation, or a ceiling of 1.7 million voters. And 'manipulated' is still limited to influence, it does not drive final decision.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
robby44 said:

Trump alleges Google manipulated voters against him

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/457953-trump-alleges-google-manipulated-voters-against-him

cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.


If our electorate is so ignorant that it can be manipulated in such a manner.....

our country is doomed anyway .
seeing as how we have a thread about flat earthers perhaps you should open your eyes......


Yes our electorate is that easily manipulated.

They see something on facebook and think it is true.

They watch a movie and think it is real not hollywood science

How is this any different than the claim that Russia influenced voters to vote for Trump?
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm amazed more people haven't figured out that YouTube (one of Google's subsidiaries, and the world's top video hosting platform) directs people to right-wing propaganda on the regular with its autoplay feature (same reason you can't leave kids alone with YouTube, one second they are watching kids programming the next it's some QAnon BS or psuedo porn). Possibly there is a left wing equivalent I just haven't encountered yet, but right wing conspiracists and pundits have been gaming YouTube's algorithms to show their propaganda in "suggested videos" lists (which YouTube will auto-play consecutively on it's own by default) for a while now. I've lost count the number of times I watched some non-political video and the next suggested one is some idiot pundit ranting about "leftists" and whatever social issue is hot at the moment.

Y'all ever notice how prominent those conservative PragerU vids are on YouTube? Thank the Kochs and their money for that. Realize also that there is no analogous left wing equivalent to the endless stream of conservative "victim" pundits stirring up anger about "leftists" existing. And while this is going on, Trump is whining non-stop about non-existent bias and threatening anti 1st Amendment actions, and of course Trump's followers bark and clap for it like seals.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.


If our electorate is so ignorant that it can be manipulated in such a manner.....

our country is doomed anyway .
seeing as how we have a thread about flat earthers perhaps you should open your eyes......


Yes our electorate is that easily manipulated.

They see something on facebook and think it is true.

They watch a movie and think it is real not hollywood science

How is this any different than the claim that Russia influenced voters to vote for Trump?


Yes our electorate in general is shockingly ignorant.

And some could be influenced.....but a certain % of people have always been easily manipulated.

cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

GolemIII said:

fubar said:

What in the world does that even mean? "Manipulated" votes?


Since you are apparently not intelligent enough to understand the topic or perhaps don't yet grasp the new fangled 'interwebz', a cursory 30 second search yielded the following: "... testimony from psychologist and commentator Dr. Robert Epstein, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June "biased search results generated by Google's search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported)."

Happy to help. Good luck with your future online endeavors.


If our electorate is so ignorant that it can be manipulated in such a manner.....

our country is doomed anyway .
seeing as how we have a thread about flat earthers perhaps you should open your eyes......


Yes our electorate is that easily manipulated.

They see something on facebook and think it is true.

They watch a movie and think it is real not hollywood science

How is this any different than the claim that Russia influenced voters to vote for Trump?


Yes our electorate in general is shockingly ignorant.

And some could be influenced.....but a certain % of people have always been easily manipulated.


I agree. There are always those gullible people out there, easily tricked, etc.

But it seems that the amount of the population that are is growing. My evidence for that would be the growth in flat earthers, believers in conspiracy theories, or people that can't answer simple questions in those "jaywalking type videos" (even if they edit them for the worst ones).
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

I'm amazed more people haven't figured out that YouTube (one of Google's subsidiaries, and the world's top video hosting platform) directs people to right-wing propaganda on the regular with its autoplay feature (same reason you can't leave kids alone with YouTube, one second they are watching kids programming the next it's some QAnon BS or psuedo porn). Possibly there is a left wing equivalent I just haven't encountered yet, but right wing conspiracists and pundits have been gaming YouTube's algorithms to show their propaganda in "suggested videos" lists (which YouTube will auto-play consecutively on it's own by default) for a while now. I've lost count the number of times I watched some non-political video and the next suggested one is some idiot pundit ranting about "leftists" and whatever social issue is hot at the moment.

Y'all ever notice how prominent those conservative PragerU vids are on YouTube? Thank the Kochs and their money for that. Realize also that there is no analogous left wing equivalent to the endless stream of conservative "victim" pundits stirring up anger about "leftists" existing. And while this is going on, Trump is whining non-stop about non-existent bias and threatening anti 1st Amendment actions, and of course Trump's followers bark and clap for it like seals.
They've also silenced and cancelled many conservative accounts on YouTube.
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#SwainTheDramp

- KKM

Dale?
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

I'm amazed more people haven't figured out that YouTube (one of Google's subsidiaries, and the world's top video hosting platform) directs people to right-wing propaganda on the regular with its autoplay feature (same reason you can't leave kids alone with YouTube, one second they are watching kids programming the next it's some QAnon BS or psuedo porn). Possibly there is a left wing equivalent I just haven't encountered yet, but right wing conspiracists and pundits have been gaming YouTube's algorithms to show their propaganda in "suggested videos" lists (which YouTube will auto-play consecutively on it's own by default) for a while now. I've lost count the number of times I watched some non-political video and the next suggested one is some idiot pundit ranting about "leftists" and whatever social issue is hot at the moment.

Y'all ever notice how prominent those conservative PragerU vids are on YouTube? Thank the Kochs and their money for that. Realize also that there is no analogous left wing equivalent to the endless stream of conservative "victim" pundits stirring up anger about "leftists" existing. And while this is going on, Trump is whining non-stop about non-existent bias and threatening anti 1st Amendment actions, and of course Trump's followers bark and clap for it like seals.
Youtube cracked down on conservative videos and channels, and you're actually under the impression they are encouraging it? Hmmm....
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.