SPUTNIK EXCLUSIVE: Research Proves Google Manipulates Millions

Obviously.

Da, comrade!

Who ever said corporations had to be neutral when it came to politics? They're tax paying entities. They're allowed to advocate and support political causes/candidates.

>>72569
>sputniknews

Are we really taking a Russian blog seriously when it comes to US elections?

>>72584
Legally permitted =/= morally acceptable.

>>72595
No

>>72584
A search engine is like a library and when you impede certain results you're essentially burning/hiding the books from being accessed. Google is too large that have that kind of freedom and thus needs to be restricted/punished.

Non-story:

www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google-debunked

tldr; Google doesn't autocomplete anything negative about living people because it got sued several times for that in the EU.

>>72616
>A search engine is like a library
No, it's not. A library is publicly funded. A search engine is not necessarily publicly funded, and I don't know of any good ones that are.

>Google is too large that have that kind of freedom and thus needs to be restricted/punished.

1) You are attempting to impose your will on others through no other virtue than your own desires. This is the sort of thing civilized societies exist to prevent. If you wish someone else to do something, form a contract with them.
2) Maybe if you had thought of your ideals years ago, and had stopped using Google's products when it became obvious that they were datamining your emails, manipulating search results for their own financial gain, etc., you wouldn't now be in this position.
3) You may find this piece (which I found, as I have found things for years, without using Google) interesting: http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at-yale/
4) Since Google is a company, you can voice your displeasure by not using Google's services, not using sites that use Google's advertising network, etc. If you do not do this, then by your actions you are making it clear that you Google, even with these actions, is more valuable to you than your ideals.

>>72569
This news website is notorious for its lack of ethics and journalistic standards

I would disregard this story on that basis. Forget the fact that a multi-billion dollar company conspiring to favor a political candidate is ridiculous

>>72595
This

>>72595
>Are we really taking a Russian blog seriously
>>72595
>Are we really taking a Russian blog

lol you are retard. go and dump some vodka into the sewer.

>>72623
>journalistic standards

rolf. mylittle cocksucker. i bet you has many examples for this website being low "journalistic standards".

Happens all the time. The big banks spend a lot of money skewing search results to make Elizabeth Warren look like a liar. They took out an internet hit on her because she fined them over the banking crisis. They have hidden links all over the web that the search engines crawl. The links all go to negative articles. However, for all they spend it is hard to fool the smart people at google.

>>72622
>You are attempting to impose your will on others through no other virtue than your own desires.

As opposed to what? There's no other reason people impose their morals on others. It's entirely selfish.

So we can all agree that this story is tinfoil clickbait blogtrash and OP is a useful idiot for the Russians, right?

Google always manipulates searches according to liberal agenda. It would be no surprise if they shill for Hillary. Best to use a different search engine and captcha altogether.

>>72685
>So we can all agree that this story is tinfoil clickbait blogtrash and OP is a useful idiot for the Russians, right?

Only if you vote Democrat.

>When starting a thread you must include the complete URL of a news article from a credible news site (for instance, a newspaper, news magazine, or a news TV channel). Blogs and editorial articles are not acceptable news sources.

Report /pol/cucks
Hide /pol/bait
Do not respond to /pol/posters

>>72618
this anon needs more replies and recognition

There are no clear results from the research this author gathered. He says it himself multiple times. As to those who said google wouldnt care who got elected.. LOL! A multibillion dollar company cares very much who gets elected. The people who are in office can make a huge impact on how many taxes and fees a company has to pay out. The bigger the company is, the larger effects politics plays on their yearly profits.

>>72751
the flaw in the logic resides in the given that profits are all corporation's top pri

>>72753
While profit is not the top priority of all corporations. It is usually found to be very important. A company does not grow to be a multi billion dollar company without placing profit amongst its top priorities.

Thank you for your input!

>>72756
whats company policy on manipulating elections

how do you even go about doing that from a corporate level without people finding out

Search wars happen all the time. The big banks/financial services companies spend a lot of money skewing search results to make Elizabeth Warren look like a liar. They took out an internet hit on her because she fined them over the banking crisis. They have hidden links all over the web that the search engines crawl. The links all go to negative articles. However, for all they spend it is hard to fool an intelligent search engine.

>>72757
Thank you for your response!

Im not quite sure how company policy is relevant.... I will say that IF Google were to do something, like manipulate search results, i wouldnt think it would be too hard to cover up. Id imagine that all they would have to do is pay off three or four people to keep quiet.

>>72572
Дa*

>>72683
Kek. you got wreckd man. Just go quietly.

>>72632
>where is the proofs?

>>72569

Google search results can also be manipulated by third parties. There's entire marketing companies dedicated to studying how to make Google do what they want. Google also makes an effort to NOT allow their search results to be tampered, but it's a niche industry. Just look up SEO marketing.

So even if the results are biased, that's not proof of Google's collusion. The definitive proof would be in the code with the parameters and criterion that picks the results. But that code is Google's top secret.

With Clinton's deep pockets, Google's help isn't needed to bias search results. These old farts just don't know how Search Engine Optimization works.

>>72616
If Trump is elected everyone will be punished. Right on, Google!

Wouldn't google always have a bias towards the more popular candidate? Isn't this how google works?

>>72727
Projecting much?

>>72919
>people who complain about /pol/ are the real /pol/!!!11one

>>72618
>tldr; Google doesn't autocomplete anything negative about living people

The article I posted in the OP gives several examples showing that this explanation is not adequate.

>Google tries to explain away such findings by saying its search bar is programmed to avoid suggesting searches that portray people in a negative light. As far as we can tell, this claim is false; Google suppresses negative suggestions selectively, not across the board. It is easy to get autocomplete to suggest negative searches related to prominent people, one of whom happens to be Mrs. Clinton's opponent.
[...]

>Consider the following searches, conducted on August 2nd, for "anti Hillary" and "anti Trump." As you can see below, "anti Hillary" generated no suggestions, but "anti Trump" generated four, including "anti Trump cartoon" and "anti Trump song." Well, you say, perhaps there were no anti-Hillary suggestions to be made. But Yahoo — responding merely to "anti Hill" — came up with eight, including "anti Hillary memes" and "anti Hillary jokes."


The rest of the article gives further examples showing that google does not filter negative results across the board, but selectively filters out many of the most common anti-clinton searches even when those searches are trending.

>>73363
see this link for the image since this is a text board

https://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/104521/30/1045213057.png

>>72623
>>72751
>If you believe Google can do no wrong and that it never favors one candidate over another (even though Google and its top executives donated more than $800,000 to Obama in 2012 and only $37,000 to Romney), so be it.
thank you both for correcting the record.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html

>>73364
I really don't see how you could fail to grasp the point of the post you're replying to like this, this image shows trust Google does not autocomplete negative things about living people as anon said. Also, one instance of anything is hardly evidence of some huge conspiracy

Time to bury your shitty thread

>>73385
Do you think that just repeating your claims even when they're proven to be unsatisfactory will convince people?

What is the point continuing to post when you know that you're wrong?

You claim that google doesn't autocomplete negative things about living people.

This is objectively wrong and I've already proven this once
>Google tries to explain away such findings by saying its search bar is programmed to avoid suggesting searches that portray people in a negative light. As far as we can tell, this claim is false; Google suppresses negative suggestions selectively, not across the board. It is easy to get autocomplete to suggest negative searches related to prominent people, one of whom happens to be Mrs. Clinton's opponent.
[...]

>Consider the following searches, conducted on August 2nd, for "anti Hillary" and "anti Trump." As you can see below, "anti Hillary" generated no suggestions, but "anti Trump" generated four, including "anti Trump cartoon" and "anti Trump song." Well, you say, perhaps there were no anti-Hillary suggestions to be made. But Yahoo — responding merely to "anti Hill" — came up with eight, including "anti Hillary memes" and "anti Hillary jokes."
https://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/104521/30/1045213057.png


If google does not autocomplete negative thigns about living people then why do negative autocomplete suggestions come up for trump and not hilary?

Your explanation is patently bullshit that is contradicted by facts.

Are you hoping that no one will bother to check the article and will just take you at you word rather than see that you're wrong?

>>73514
You should try it yourself on google then. Try to type negative things followed by either "hil" or "tru", and you'll see the autocompletes. I don't see any differences between either of them. If anything, "anti hil" was autocompleted with Hillary, but not "anti tru".

So yeah, tl;dr, just bs and we can move along.

>Russian blog
>faggots like this >>72616 crying for public siezure of a private business

I wish commies would fuck off and leave our election alone.

I literally just came to say, you can see the truth in at least part of this by simply googling her name. Nothing else, just her name. The only things that came up, were, for the most part, positive towards her. Even though anytime you actually hear her name. It's in regards to a scandal, her poor health, or low turn out at rallies.

>>73517
The article addresses this, I've alredy posted the relevent section in the thread.

Once again it seems like you're less interested in being correct than you are in hoping that people won't check the evidence and just take your posts at face value.

>To test Lieberman's claim that Google's search suggestions are biased in Mrs. Clinton's favor, my associates and I have been looking at the suggestions Google shows us in response to hundreds of different election-related search terms. To minimize the possibility that those suggestions were customized for us as individuals (based on the massive personal profiles Google has assembled for virtually all Americans), we have conducted our searches through proxy servers — even through the Tor network — thus making it difficult for Google to identify us. We also cleared the fingerprints Google leaves on computers (cache and cookies) fairly obsessively.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html

you could easily have an additional profile built up when you use google and working like a contextual gaussian bandit which infuences the search suggestions you get so ou don't get to see the 'raw' search suggestions from the state of google trends at that point in time.

doesn't really work. Have you seen Clinton's favor ratings in the polls?

>>73525
>Russian blog
>Article written by an American psychologist post-PhD researcher
you're clawing at straws

Just did a quick test. The following was the result:
"Hillary clinton is "
>a criminal
>sick
>team valor
>dead
Meanwhile, "Donald trump is "
>going to win
>dead
>orange
>not a politician

>>73599
Russian blog btfo

I found one other website that published Robert Epstein's article.
https://www.rt.com/usa/359079-google-search-manipulation-clinton/

It is however also funded by the Russian government, just like Sputnik is.

There's an interesting section about Epstein's disputes against Google on his wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Epstein

On Dr. Epstein's twitter, you can see him comment further on the issue.
https://twitter.com/DrREpstein

>>73620
He wrote on 14th of september:
>It looks like Google read my article and stopped protecting Hillary in autocomplete - at least for now
with a picture of negative search suggestions.

>>73599

For fun I decided to do this too. My results are:
"hillary clinton is"
>dead
>[blank, cuts off]
>rael [is+rael=israel]
>awesome
>a robot

"donald trump is"
>dead
>[black, cuts off]
>rael [is+rael=israel]
>a democrat
>going to win
>orange
>not a conservative
>no ronald reagan

Just like everywhere else, he gets way more headlines. I enjoy that the top three for both are the same.

>>73111
I just meant the cuck part

>>72622
For those who haven't switched to other search engines, Google is the main source of information.
So what if it's publicly or privately funded?
It's still tailoring what the vast majority of people see to your agenda.

And your arguments assume that everyone is aware Google is performing censorship, so it's their fault the for using a bad service rather than the service's fault for being bad.

It is not common knowledge that Google commits censorship, Google in fact has an extremely good public image; you can't expect censorship to stop when people aren't aware of the censorship, this is where government intervention is required.

Trump ain't gonna win

>>73855
Your tin foil hat is askew my friend

Google is not tailoring search results to push an agenda, they are not censoring anything

>>72569
ad sense bruh.....mostly based off what you are searching and of course depending on marketing by the opposition in your area.

>>73864
If you're not blind you can see subtle evil things google does. YouTube is shit ever since they bought it.

>>72569
so this just happened
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n05kpod9SHs

>>73885
I do find a lot of good videos there still but in the code they do things like prevent you from downloading videos and they have experimented with a lot of ways to recommend videos to you that I would not agree to being subject to. Also way way more ads now.

>>73884
this, and it just keeps getting worse

>>73885
I tried so hard. Democrats can't do anything without mentioning 'common sense gun laws.'

>>73885

i hated that but abuela was adorbs

>commies still demanding the government take even more control of private businesses

So how much does Vlad pay you to shitpost here, Sasha?

>>73599
>>73659
Google builds personalised advertising profiles that modify their default web suggestions.


delete all your cookies and cache and access google through a network like tor if you want to see what google's search suggestions are like without any personalisation.

The article literally says this half way through, I've already posted it once in this thread. >>73590
>To test Lieberman's claim that Google's search suggestions are biased in Mrs. Clinton's favor, my associates and I have been looking at the suggestions Google shows us in response to hundreds of different election-related search terms. To minimize the possibility that those suggestions were customized for us as individuals (based on the massive personal profiles Google has assembled for virtually all Americans), we have conducted our searches through proxy servers — even through the Tor network — thus making it difficult for Google to identify us. We also cleared the fingerprints Google leaves on computers (cache and cookies) fairly obsessively.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html


But thank you both for correcting the record.

>>73982
the point is to spread awareness.

if anyone seems to be shilling in this thread it seems to be the people who repeatedly try to discredit the research of a serious scholar:
>EPSTEIN (@DrREpstein) is Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in Vista, California. A PhD of Harvard University, Epstein has published fifteen books on artificial intelligence and other topics. He is also the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.

by simply repeating the canned phrase "russian blog".

Or make other lazy and false claims that are directly refuted within the article.

I have had it with these god damn googles getting their brown shit-covered fingers in everything!

>>72569
>You faggots use google

duckduckgo.com plebs

>>72584
It's still unethical for a corporation as large and influential as Google. The responsible thing to do would be to just NOT skew the results and alter search suggestions to favor any agenda in particular.

>>72584

Yeah, I forgot businesses have rights.

Unless they are Christian Mingle.com. Or a Christian bakery. Then fuck business-rights.

>>74236
I forgot supporting a political candidate violates the Bill of Rights.

>>72569
No need to perform a study over something I can already see myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytDtxkYmasU

>>74248
Google is the default search engine for such a large majority even with Bing's surge in popularity because of its excellent image search features for the pr0n. Google directly tipping the scales is absolutely fucked and unethical who cares if they're a business the very nature and broad scope of this company should make it be held to higher standard of accountability. Its so entwined with people's daily lives especially in the United States and the trust and dependence of its users are its life blood so betraying that is just a bad move in general. Not that they haven't done it before in other duplicitous ways.