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.
२० ऑगस्ट, २०१५
"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."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२८ टिप्पण्या:
Well, that seems extremely concerning. Do you people who think Google is on your side like that?
Bullshit.
Google trying to create power for themself with false assertions.
because of all the demographic groups we have looked at so far, no group has been more vulnerable to SEME—in other words, so blindly trusting of search rankings—than moderate Republicans.
Moderate Republicans?? I don't think there are any. I think it would be more accurate to say independents.
The MSM has a huge influence on women, its audience.
That's how women's vote came to be a bad idea.
Wouldn't this be similar to the assertion by someone in the media during the 2004 election that the media could shift the election some 15% in John Kerry's favor?
" so blindly trusting of search rankings—than moderate Republicans."
This is a very suspicious statement. Sounds lie the old leftist "republicans are dumb" meme.
Why do I smell a movement to "regulate" search engines?
Eric Schmidt was an Obama campaign adviser & big-time donor in 2008. He has since strengthened his ties to the Obama administration. This is what they call "crony capitalism."
That's how women's vote came to be a bad idea.
**********************
If anyone needs proof that the women's vote is a bad idea, or that the MSM has a huge influence on them, I offer the following:
The continuing popularity of the Kardashians.
You've got a lot to answer for, ladies.
@jelink, agree!
Maybe early on when the campaign hasn't started, but I wonder what the effect would be after the two conventions, and when network TV becomes unwatchable.
I wonder if those mega powerful search engines can find any candidates besides Trump being popular and Hillary dodging the bloodhounds.
Clearly, such power should be wielded by activists, using government to write laws, punish enemies and mold The People's Will into a towering inferno of righteous, empathetic equality.
Clearly, such power should be used by social and religious conservatives following the Constitution, mostly, to reign in those who hold such power by the fruits of the labors. All shall be answerable to God's will and his Commandments.
An article I wrote in 2009 for Noquarter blog. Check out the video in the article by a brilliant guy by name "Flineo":Did you see Step #3: infect the media, infect the Internet?
I must admit that I did not understand what the mechanism is supposed to be that influences voters. Search rankings ? Who cares? I also admit that I was skimming, looking for a clear explanation of why search rankings have meaning and I could not find it. Maybe Bruce Hayden can explain this to me.
Actually, I left out a gaggle of die hard atheist libertarians, gold bugs, sea-steaders and anarchists leading us to a night watchman state, anarchy and/or perfect individual freedom
I believe it's because in designing the search algorithms, you've already made choices, even choices that adapt with users given their feedback.
Search for Hillary on Google in six months or less, Google will give you Biden/Warren, heh.
Is this an Onion piece. It is so poorly written. What the hell are any of those scary three scenarios?
But hey, what do I know, I'm a moderate Republican.
Ah, for the good old days, when the local paper's endorsement called the shots.
This is an argument for indirect voting, whether the authors admit or not. There is no type of media in a media-covered election in which media-coverage doesn't sway the distracted and the dim.
Another interesting point: Even here, with real voters who were highly familiar with the candidates and who were being bombarded with campaign rhetoric every day, we showed that search rankings could boost the proportion of people favoring any candidate by more than 20 percent—more than 60 percent in some demographic groups.
Here is an argument for support of unregulated speech. Less speech (for example, overturning Citizens United) simply drives the bias to other venues. And at least, with campaign rhetoric, everyone is the wiser.
Finally, why would some demographic groups be most impacted? Perhaps because some demographic groups are most likely to turn to non-campaign sources for their information.
Deez Nuts.
"In the late 1800s, Western Union had a monopoly on communications in America, and just before the election of 1876, the company did its best to assure that only positive news stories about Hayes appeared in newspapers nationwide."
Western Union had a near monopoly on electronic communication (which was exclusively telegraphic), but not on communications overall. The newspapers and the big national magazines like Harpers were dominant, and they determined what was written far more than Western Union might have through any selectivity in access. This statement by the authors is so wrong and foolish that by itself it calls the rest into question.
Aha. The New York Times must be outraged. Doesn't everyone know that this ability to tip elections (and all that ad revenue) is their birthright? I'm surprised MattD and RushL aren't headlined to have the same ability - it's certainly been claimed in the past (in the call for FEC intervention in free speech, aka spending money.)
People get the government they want, if they care at all, and likely deserve. Hitler was voted in. And led the world's largest coalition before Gulf 1 and 41. And the armed german citizenry largely stood by, if not cheered in support.
Google is an appendage of the ongoing criminal conspiracy known as the Democrat Party.
What is surprising? Does anyone really think the progressive influence in this country could exist without manipulation of information on many fronts? Collectively, we are a stupid people, but not as stupid as that.
"... blindly trusting of search rankings -- than moderate Republicans."
Republicans came to be known as "The Stupid Party" because - among other reasons - of their political vulnerability to Democrat sleaze resulting from the naive belief that there are some lengths to which even Democrats won't go to achieve political domination. That reputation has been enhanced by their further belief that GOP leaders are not typical of the grifters found in the political class.
And we all know which way Google leans.
its very nice article thank you very much for share this information masters dissertation writing service
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा