patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,001 comments by 13,864 users - AmericanKulak, Ceffer, just_passing_through, RayAmerica online now
invite responseComments 1 - 5 of 5 Search these comments
1
BigFrank
2019 Sep 12, 7:19pm
Through a series of calculations, Epstein concluded that if this level of bias was present nationwide, it would’ve shifted somewhere between 2.6 million and 10.4 million votes to Clinton.
So 15% of Hillary voters were potentially Trump voters, if not for google manipulations? Who writes this crap?
So 15% of Hillary voters were potentially Trump voters, if not for google manipulations? Who writes this crap?
2
Ceffer
2019 Sep 12, 10:57pm
Ceffer
2019 Sep 12, 10:57pm
He has interesting research. He is kind of proving what everybody already knows, but the real question is do people believe enough without skepticism to actually be significantly influenced.
It does seem that distrust is becoming more common, even from quarters one might not have previously suspected.
It does seem that distrust is becoming more common, even from quarters one might not have previously suspected.
3
Bd6r
2019 Sep 13, 10:10am
Bd6r
2019 Sep 13, 10:10am
HonkpilledMaster says
I get that google is biased as hell, but how search bias can lead to such big shift of votes? Most people make up their minds in ways other than googling candidates.
He says "most of his experiments had participants conducting only one online search" - I do not think this is how people decide how to vote.
On the other hand, he says "Hillary Clinton would have received 450,000 more votes on election day in 2016 if Facebook had sent a “go vote” reminder just to left-leaning users." - this is logical - but it was not done.
Through a series of calculations, Epstein concluded that if this level of bias was present nationwide, it would’ve shifted somewhere between 2.6 million and 10.4 million votes to Clinton.
I get that google is biased as hell, but how search bias can lead to such big shift of votes? Most people make up their minds in ways other than googling candidates.
He says "most of his experiments had participants conducting only one online search" - I do not think this is how people decide how to vote.
On the other hand, he says "Hillary Clinton would have received 450,000 more votes on election day in 2016 if Facebook had sent a “go vote” reminder just to left-leaning users." - this is logical - but it was not done.
4
Hircus
2019 Sep 13, 2:05pm
Hircus
2019 Sep 13, 2:05pm
6rdB says
I can't say I really have knowledge of how their algo's truly function other than to say I'm an experienced software engineer who likes algo's as a topic. But again, I don't know theirs, and the details of how it works is the key bit here. So, what follows is just a low quality guess from me.
Most of developed society gets a large portion of their info from Google. Every article you read was written by someone who uses google to get some of their info. They are biased a tiny bit from being exposed to slightly biased search results. They go on to write an article, and that article is biased a tiny bit because the author is biased a tiny bit.
The next person to write an article is also biased a bit because they read some of those biased articles + exposure to Google bias in search results. They too, write a now slightly more biased article.
News and other media sources also like to play to popularity, so there could be a bit of positive feedback loop going on on a broad scale from it.
Google's algo learns, and discovers what is popular, and what trends are emerging. This affects it's results - potentially magnifying some of these biased articles and narratives.
And the cycle repeats, moving towards a new normal. I get most of my info via computer.
* I also suspect some Google engineers either unconsciously, or CONSCIOUSLY, maybe tweak the algo, or functionality of other things (like the info cards in the sidebar) to support their politics. If the coder truly believes that their views are correct, and that the currently opposing view is harmful, they could intentionally make a change that would instill a bias, and they would view themself as a true hero for it.
I get that google is biased as hell, but how search bias can lead to such big shift of votes?
I can't say I really have knowledge of how their algo's truly function other than to say I'm an experienced software engineer who likes algo's as a topic. But again, I don't know theirs, and the details of how it works is the key bit here. So, what follows is just a low quality guess from me.
Most of developed society gets a large portion of their info from Google. Every article you read was written by someone who uses google to get some of their info. They are biased a tiny bit from being exposed to slightly biased search results. They go on to write an article, and that article is biased a tiny bit because the author is biased a tiny bit.
The next person to write an article is also biased a bit because they read some of those biased articles + exposure to Google bias in search results. They too, write a now slightly more biased article.
News and other media sources also like to play to popularity, so there could be a bit of positive feedback loop going on on a broad scale from it.
Google's algo learns, and discovers what is popular, and what trends are emerging. This affects it's results - potentially magnifying some of these biased articles and narratives.
And the cycle repeats, moving towards a new normal. I get most of my info via computer.
* I also suspect some Google engineers either unconsciously, or CONSCIOUSLY, maybe tweak the algo, or functionality of other things (like the info cards in the sidebar) to support their politics. If the coder truly believes that their views are correct, and that the currently opposing view is harmful, they could intentionally make a change that would instill a bias, and they would view themself as a true hero for it.
5
HeadSet
2019 Sep 13, 4:36pm
HeadSet
2019 Sep 13, 4:36pm
And the cycle repeats, moving towards a new normal. I get most of my info via computer.
If that were so, the other search engines would show a similar trend.
If that were so, the other search engines would show a similar trend.
In 2016, Epstein set up a secret monitoring system that showed that Google results were significantly skewed toward Clinton in the months leading up to the presidential election.
Epstein had 95 field agents in 24 states conduct election-related searches with neutral search terms on Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The results from all these searches were then saved.
“We were able to preserve 13,207 election-related searches as well as the 98,044 webpages to which the search results linked,” Epstein said. In effect, they were able to permanently preserve snapshots of what are normally “ephemeral” experiences.
Epstein decided only to collect the data, but not to analyze it prior to the 2016 election, because if he found bias, he would face an impossible dilemma.
“What would I do? I mean, if I announced it, there would have been absolute chaos, especially, I think, if there was bias against Donald Trump. And if I didn’t announce it, then I would be complicit in the rigging of an election,” he said.
In the analysis, “we found substantial bias favoring Hillary Clinton in all 10 search positions on the first page of search results on Google, but not Bing or Yahoo,” he said, adding that the probability that the bias was solely due to chance was less than 1 in 1000.
Through a series of calculations, Epstein concluded that if this level of bias was present nationwide, it would’ve shifted somewhere between 2.6 million and 10.4 million votes to Clinton.
Epstein describes himself as a moderate who leans liberal. And he had been a longtime supporter of the Clintons. “But I felt very strongly that since our results were so clear that I had a responsibility to report the findings,” he said.
Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes, but the popular vote “might have been very different,” Epstein said, if there had been no bias in Google’s search results.
“It was uncomfortable for me to have to acknowledge that, to have to announce that. But that’s what I concluded from the research.”
People trust in Google’s search rankings, he said, because they believe it’s generated by a computer algorithm, and thus must be impartial. What was especially disturbing was the subliminal manipulation; in most cases, “people can’t see the bias in search results.”
For the 2018 midterm elections, Epstein set up a larger monitoring system focusing on three Republican districts in Orange County, California, which all ended up flipping Democrat. He found that on Google (but not Bing or Yahoo), search results were strongly biased in favor of Democratic candidates.
Based on Epstein’s calculations, if that same level of bias was present nationwide in 2018, it would have shifted more than 78.2 million votes across the different elections at the state, regional, and local levels
https://www.theepochtimes.com/robert-epstein-how-big-tech-bias-threatens-free-and-fair-elections_3077681.html