In 2018 Election, Google’s bias may have shifted 78.2 million votes to one political party

Sara Carter ^

[TigerClaws]

“Big tech companies, especially Google, can shift a lot of votes, without people knowing and without leaving a paper trail,” said psychiatrist Dr. Robert Epstein in an interview with One America’s News Network.

While there is a bipartisan interest on how to deal with these big tech companies, Dr. Epstein said that “Congress is just not gone get it together on time to protect us, the American public, from interference in the 2020 election by big tech. Google has likely been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide since at least 2015. This is because many races are very close and because Google’s persuasive technologies are very powerful.

In the weeks leading up to the 2018 election, bias in Google’s search results may have shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes to the candidates of one political party (spread across hundreds of local and regional races). This number is based on data captured by my 2018 monitoring system, which preserved more than 47,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, along with the nearly 400,000 web pages to which the search results linked. Strong political bias toward one party was evident, once again, in Google searches.

These effects are nothing like Russian-placed ads or fake news stories. Russian interference, although troubling and unacceptable, does not, in my opinion, shift many votes (Epstein, 2017d, 2018a). Ads and news stories are competitive and visible, like billboards. The kinds of ephemeral effects I am studying, however, are invisible and non-competitive. They are controlled entirely by Big Tech companies, and there is no way to counteract them.

Click below to read full testimony of Dr. Robert Epstein before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on June 16, 2019:

[unlearner]

“The kinds of ephemeral effects I am studying, however, are invisible and non-competitive. They are controlled entirely by Big Tech companies, and there is no way to counteract them.”

Lead might be counteractive.

[gibsonguy]

Sine all the shifting was to help one party and now that party controls the House nothing will be done about it. Nothing. This is a bigger threat to Trump then any of the Rats candidates.

[LouAvul]

And, in a similar vein, high-school dropout actors and actresses, single digit IQ foolsball players, and (those who can't, teach) teachers have stolen an entire generation of voters.

We're up against it.

[Trumpisourlastchance]

The infinitesimally small number or Russian ads were click bait to make money, not to shift votes.

[Vaquero]

DOJ. Pick up the RED PHONE

[x]

The effect is real. The numbers are ridiculous.

78 million is over half the number of votes cast in the presidential election.

If the guy is counting every vote in every separate election that may have been changed by google searches, it's more possible, but still, using such numbers makes the guy sound like an idiot.

[laxcoach]

Sounds like an in kind political contribution that would have a value far beyond donation limits

[Sans-Culotte]

I...must...vote...the...way the Google...search algorithm...tells me...to vote....zzzz

[OrangeHoof]

I’m sorry but I don’t buy this, even a little. Only morons would change their votes based on internet reports and most of those morons were liberals to start with because you don’t have to be rational to be a liberal.

[cuban leaf]

72.8 million? I believe they are biased and all, but that number seems to come out of someone’s butt...

[lepton]

If the guy is counting every vote in every separate election that may have been changed by google searches, it’s more possible, but still, using such numbers makes the guy sound like an idiot.

---

The article directly states that is what is being referred to. That said, until I read down to that part, I had the same skepticism you did. Oh, and Sara Carter is a woman.

[Tellurian]

"spread across hundreds of local and regional races"

It seems he's counting vote marks. One voter could have been persuaded by Google searches to choose half a dozen particular candidates. That would be 6 of those 78 million.

[lepton]

72.8 million? I believe they are biased and all, but that number seems to come out of someone’s butt...

---

Maybe, but that could be accounted for with less than 10 million party-line voters, since that is a cumulative total.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

I admit the number seems a little high but the those who doubt the impact of search engines should view the documentary: “The Creepy Line”:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07J261ZFM

[InterceptPoint]

If the guy is counting every vote in every separate election that may have been changed by google searches, it’s more possible, but still, using such numbers makes the guy sound like an idiot.
+++++
But that is exactly what he was doing. Remember how we seemed to lose every close race in 2018? Could be the Google Tax working it’s evil.

[Responsibility2nd]

Despite Social Media’s subversive tactics, Clinton still lost in 2016.

While we may be glad that Bozo the Clown will be the democratic nominee in 2020 - we must not forget that Social Media can and will get him or her elected.

Unless we take immediate action NOW.

[precisionshootist]

She needs to check her math.

[Responsibility2nd]

I’m sorry but I don’t buy this, even a little. Only morons would change their votes based on internet reports and most of those morons were liberals to start with because you don’t have to be rational to be a liberal.

 

You need to read more from Dr. Epstein. You need to research "The Creepy Line".

Sheeple can only be bombarded just so much with anti-Trump results and pro-liberal articles. Millions of votes went to Hillary in 2016 because Google.

[KC_Conspirator]

Believe they are counting voters per voter.