Posted on 08/26/2019 11:07:28 AM PDT by 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 Americas 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 Googles persuasive technologies are very powerful.
In the weeks leading up to the 2018 election, bias in Googles 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:
Equal time.
Every time there is an add for one party, no matter what the election, there needs to be an equal time ad for the other party. Only parties with 10% of total voters may qualify for the equal time ads.
Google and Facebook and Twitter and all media companies would have to comply. The media companies would have brought on the equal-time mandate upon themselves.
I learned politics in Chicago. A precinct captain knows his voters and their hot buttons. For those who are swing voters he had identify what made them decide one way of the other.
In the internet age we can do the same. We can poing to the article of Wayne Allyn Root. A Message for Christians about Donald Trump, June 24, 2016. That message went viral on many prayer lists. We can see from the way it was forwarded from prayer list to prayer list that it was the deciding factor in Trump getting a higher percentage of Evangelicals than any presidential candidate in history.
We can point to anti-gun comments of Hillary, very specific comments and know that those comments specifically sealed a massive 2A vote for Trump.
Likewise on state and local level, we can point to Tea Party incumbent attacking a vet for her service rather than using the Democrat’s property tax increase as the winning issue. Then he sealed it by campaigning on “Pro-Life No Exceptions”. In that district one needs the combined vote of ProLife with Exception and ProLife no exception.
I was out knocking door-to-door for him. The voters said “We are not switching our votes because he is wrong on the issues. We are switching because he is stupid.”
So can anyone point to a specific voter whose vote was switched by google? or facebook? similar to the examples I give where we can put specific events and voters names to them?
I think 1-2m is the ceiling.
I have a foolproof plan that predates the internet. I look to see who my local commielib newspaper endorses and then vote just the opposite. Works every time.
Once again, only morons use the internet to decide what candidates to vote for and those morons are probably liberals already. If we have a nation of moron voters then we get the government we deserve. I don’t think most conservative voters need Google or F*ckbook to tell us who to vote for. We instinctively know that the MSM lies to us and the more someone is tarred as “extreme right”, the more likely I am to vote for them.
That’s what it said. May have been talking worldwide too. Not clear.
Yes, and how often is FR linked on a Google search of what's trending? You're moving the debate far off from the original point. This Epstein guy says possibly 78 million votes shifted based solely on how Google ranks articles. That's a way different discussion than whether you visit FR or not. Just because they are both part of the same internet has nothing to do with whether one is relevant to the other. Almost every candidate today has a website where they (if they choose to) flesh out their positions on issues of importance to me. That's doing research. I am also on mailing lists of groups who advocate/support key issues I consider important and they send me voter guides of their preferred candidates. But by the time you get down to the general election, it's typically D vs. R and 95% of the time, I'll vote for the R. Sometimes, I will vote for the I if I think the R sucks. But back to the point. Google and F*ckbook think they can sway the elections based on skewing the trending and ranking of news stories. Fine. Let them. The only people who would actually change their votes based on that are morons and the morons are almost always already Democrats because if they actually used their brains they wouldn't be persuaded by Google and F*ckbook.
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.