Posted on 08/19/2015 9:26:04 PM PDT by Swordmaker
America’s next president could be eased into office not just by TV ads or speeches, but by Google’s secret decisions, and no one—except for me and perhaps a few other obscure researchers—would know how this was accomplished.
Research I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections—indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs—than any company in history has ever had. Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson.
Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Your suspicions are only the tip of the iceberg Swordmaker.
Google has long been in negotiations with Obama-related progressives, and some brilliant political activists including John Koza, Stanford Professor and the author of one of the most successful revenue generators, the code used to manage public lotteries. Koza was identified as a major architect of a bid to designate Google as the official tabulation authority for U.S. voting, both state and federal elections. I worked with Koza and know he has the technical expertise to implement such a system I am a little puzzled at why an international authority in applied probability would want to undertake what should be a simple tabulating system. And that makes me suspicious, since besides Genetic Programming, the lottery software has made Koza many times a millionaire, and I know he admires George Soros. Tabulating votes should not depend upon probability calculations.
Today there is no audit trail for votes. It hardly matters that we don’t ALLOW id cards in precincts. We have no way to verify who voted or for whom anyway. Computer scientists have found this set of problems a rich one for student thesis, along with the regularly successful hack the voting machine exercises. Today, counting votes is a myth, with the SEIU overseeing presumed counts sent to servers managed by the SEIU. We have no way to check the validity of counts at precincts, to verify that counts at precincts were sent unmodified to state servers, or to verify that what was passed to federal attorneys general was unmodified. That is why “recounts” can continue until some authority decides who should have won, like Al Franken, or who should have lost, like Allen West.
As a computer developer I won’t throw obscure technical claims about, but will mention some experience I had with the FDA when I was involved with what was called a Laboratory Information Management system, LIMS, for a major pharmaceutical. When drugs are manufactured part of the FDA approval process involves proving that every step performed by computer controlled instruments is audited, results are stored in a database and no human has had access to any part of the process. The FDA were tough, as they should have been. They required audit trails before they would consider the validity or even allow public trials, and companies, always concerned with liability, wanted the same assurances. Today both major political parties have participated in eliminating any possibility of verifying votes.
I mentioned Mexico as an example of honest and verifiable elections. It was a surprise to me too. Here is a lecture by an amazing woman, Catherine Engelbrecht, who, concerned with minor irregularities in local precinct voting in Texas, started up a non-profit corporation, “True The Vote”, to try to improve things. She ran two businesses, is a mother of two, along with True the Vote. After four years, 23 investigations involving IRS audits, FBI visits, ATF visits to check on the guns she had a license to repair, but had never seen because she and her husband had never executed, a fact well known to the ATF, public attacks by congressman Elijah Cummings, demands that she document any twitter messages or emails concerning political views she had, or might have in the future, submit all her twitter messages and emails, and an unending bombardment by the Obama administration’s goons, she was granted, under duress, a 501c3 status.
In a fascinating interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwESjprP8-0 she described some of what we ignorantly regard as an election system. She told about the Mexican system where voters all need ID cards with biological profile information to vote, and paper ballots are placed in Lucite containers, visible to everyone in the precinct, with each container labeled clearly, sealed and guarded throughout the tabulating period so that a recount, if necessary or requested, is always possible. The U.S. once had similar mechanisms, with ballots counted at each precinct in the presence of authorized auditors, boxes tallied and sealed, shipped to bonded storage until the election was final. We need to return to honest elections and Mexico is a shining example. Google running elections would make elections, as businesses buy priority on search engines today, even more of an auction.
Nothing new here. Google search results have been prioritizing nothing but nasty, negative stories on Ted Cruz from far left, homo sites like Salon for years. Only difference is, it's gotten even worse since he declared he was running for president. The good news is, Trump has more or less used his Twitter account to neutralize the pernicious effects of Google's evil acts. Congress will need to hold Google's feet to hot fire before the elections.
All of which will end up with wikilietoyou at or near the top for any search related to politics.
All it takes is an algorithm.
There’s a whole generation who barely even know who the Beatles are, never mind James Madison.
Barack Obama was elected president twice because of too little googling, not too much.
What comes up on Google is a function of what you’ve already looked for on Google.
Did an experiment a while back with a someone in another location, we simultaneously typed in the search criteria, but the news articles they got up top were from Israeli news sources, mine from American. (btw, the other person was Jewish).
Looks like you fixed it!
False.
Google Freeper.
First hit: www.freerepublic.com
Second hit: an Urban Dictionary definition of the word:
Right-wing political activist. So-called, because it is the nickname of the denizens of the ultra-right wing Web site FreeRepublic.com. Similar to "ditto-head."
Also spelled FReeper
One should not post falsehoods so easily disproven!
Thanks for explaining the real problem. That means each candidate has to be media savvy enough to know of the bias, and bold enough to speak up about it, or guide voters to more neutral sources of information.
In short, it’s The Yelp Syndrome.
....You mean the “stupid” voter?
I use Bing.
You are absolutely correct. And I think it would have an effect on voters who are not low-information as well. A lie repeated often enough, and subtly enough, will have an effect on almost everyone.
I love Fords. I always buy Fords. But if I keep seeing articles about Ford problems and Ford recalls, over and over again, maybe I start rethinking Fords.
The author was interviewed and made this statement:
“The biggest shift was in moderate Republicans. They are most vulnerable to this kind of manipulation. “
The point is to be aware and to educate voters.
Stealing The Presidency - Study Google Search Results Influence Votes - America’s Election HQ - F&F
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3324973/posts
3:44 Minutes
Stealing The Presidency - Study Google Search Results Influence Votes - America’s Election HQ - F&F
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ-A3c3vWDM
That's why you should always doublecheck with Wikipedia.
;-)
On topic: electrical binary communication started in a big way after the 1844 demonstration of the telegraph and Morse Code by Samuel Morse. By 1848 the New York Associated Press was formed. It soon changed its name to just the Associated Press. The AP has been the dominant feature American journalism ever since. The trouble with that is thatPeople of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsSince people of the trade of journalism have been in 24/7 communication, precisely about what the news is, we have to understand that it was inevitable that journalists should have been “conspiring against the public” long before you and I were born. Even before our fathers - if not grandfathers - were born. But what would you expect such conspiracy to do to the public? What do journalists and their employers, and the AP to which their employers belong, want?Clearly, they want to attract attention, they want to be believed, and they want to be influential. So they claim to be objective, notwithstanding that such a claim is supported by nothing but their own propaganda. Indeed, if you recognize that the only way for you to make a serious attempt at being objective starts from accepting the possibility that “where you stand really depends on where you sit,” you understand that claiming to actually be objective forecloses the possibility that you are even trying to be objective.
In his “Man in the Arena” quote, Theodore Roosevelt famously said, “It is not the critic who counts.” Journalists, tho, are critics. They certainly are not “the man who is actually in the arena,” who has to take action before all the ramifications of his actions are manifest. No, they are the second guessers, who never can be wrong because they can always change the subject.
Why do I claim that this is “on topic” to a thread about "bias in Google?” Because Google has the same incentives as the rest of “the media,” and we all know that the rest of the media is “liberal.” In fact, any news/opinion operation which is not explicitly conservative will “go liberal” if indeed it doesn’t start out that way. O’Sullivan’s First Law.
That’s an easy fix...
Avoid the ‘wikilietoyou’ links... and exercise some discernment in that God-given brain (I know, the low info voter doesn’t have a brain, but he probably isn’t ‘Googling’ much either...
If I try google.ca, the Urban Dictionary is at top, www.freerepublic.com is #2, Freeper Madness is #3, and the Wikipedia entry is #4. The German site ranks the Urban Dictionary #1, Freeper Madness #2, www.freerepublic #3, and the Wikipedia #4, along with a similar annoying cookie announcement, this time auf Deutsch (must be the EUrotwits in Brussels).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.