The more I look at it, Robert Epstein appears to be a bit of a nut, which is not particularly unique in the field.

The overwhelming number of adults will make a decision regarding voting, or significant purchases in their lives, with the attempted logical defense of that decision. Yes, the emotional, psychological, subliminal effects may influence our decision, but even hypnosis will not lead someone to do something he or she was totally disinclined to do in the first place. As for Google influences, the reality is, if Google could make 1.6 million people do anything that were not already inclined to do, be it voting for President or a brand of toothpaste, Google would be charging a hell of a lot more for their advertising.

It is not possible at this point to gage the influence that Google or the Russians had on the Election in 2016. Whatever Google is alleged to have done would likely not be in violation of US Law, while Russian ads in a US Political election is illegal.

Pathetic if true. We're over a year out, imagine what they'll be doing around the summer of 2020.

https://gizmodo.com/facebook-yanks-another-trump-ad-for-a-laughably-obvious-1837393359

TL;DR: ads can't mention characteristics of people that might view the ads. As in "Hey Ladies!". Also, it was mostly likely automated.

codyorr said:

---

https://gizmodo.com/facebook-yanks-another-trump-ad-for-a-laughably-obvious-1837393359

TL;DR: ads can't mention characteristics of people that might view the ads. As in "Hey Ladies!". Also, it was mostly likely automated.

---

I guess they should cancel this Nike ad literally focusing on woman then.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=816306032042258

twd74 said:

---

The more I look at it, Robert Epstein appears to be a bit of a nut, which is not particularly unique in the field.

The overwhelming number of adults will make a decision regarding voting, or significant purchases in their lives, with the attempted logical defense of that decision. Yes, the emotional, psychological, subliminal effects may influence our decision, but even hypnosis will not lead someone to do something he or she was totally disinclined to do in the first place. As for Google influences, the reality is, if Google could make 1.6 million people do anything that were not already inclined to do, be it voting for President or a brand of toothpaste, Google would be charging a hell of a lot more for their advertising.

It is not possible at this point to gage the influence that Google or the Russians had on the Election in 2016. Whatever Google is alleged to have done would likely not be in violation of US Law, while Russian ads in a US Political election is illegal.

---

riflebear said:

---

codyorr said:

---

https://gizmodo.com/facebook-yanks-another-trump-ad-for-a-laughably-obvious-1837393359

TL;DR: ads can't mention characteristics of people that might view the ads. As in "Hey Ladies!". Also, it was mostly likely automated.

---

I guess they should cancel this Nike ad literally focusing on woman then.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=816306032042258

---

No the policy isn't against ads that reference a particular group; the policy prohibits ads that specify the *viewers* characteristics.

twd74 said:

---

The more I look at it, Robert Epstein appears to be a bit of a nut, which is not particularly unique in the field.

---

Really?

[url=https://twitter.com/DrREpstein][/url]
#Hillary: I know you're in #Google's pocket, but for the sake of our #democracy, I urge you listen to my recent Congressional testimony (https://c-span.org/video/?c4807816/congressionalhearing-16july2019-testimonybydrrobertepstein) & to scan the 58 essays & conference papers I list at the end of my written testimony:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein%20Testimony.pdf

fubar said:

---

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?

---

His testimony was based on a peer-reviewed article from 2015 and a non-peer-reviewed white paper from 2017. After reading both, I think his numbers are more speculative than he makes them sound. I also think there's reason to be concerned and to demand more neutrality and transparency from Google.

Holder's most recent tweet....

Speaking of social media manipulating Americans...

I hope most are y'all are smart enough to understand this already, but just in case: Mark Zuckerberg is not your friend, and Facebook has been weaponized against Democracy in general.

HuMcK said:

---

Speaking of social media manipulating Americans...

I hope most are y'all are smart enough to understand this already, but just in case: Mark Zuckerberg is not your friend, and Facebook has been weaponized against Democracy in general.

---

Filed under "no kidding." I am on it. I am not a fan of it. Ironically, it seems like the more information we have access to easily, the less we are inclined to review it.