Interference by Google in the election

[+OverSword]

Everyone is rightfully concerned about foreign nations interfering/influencing in our elections, but what about big corporations?  Google has the ability to influence elections by slightly adjusting search results.  But would they?

 

[aztek]

there is a saying in Russian, who screams robbery the loudest? the thief .

maybe trump needs to hire special investigator and investigate google, fb, tweeter, nyt...etc,

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, aztek said:

there is a saying in Russian, who screams robbery the loudest? the thief .

maybe trump needs to hire special investigator and investigate google, fb, tweeter, nyt...etc,

Peoples heads would explode.

[XenoFish]

I don't trust Google or YouTube.

[Dark_Grey]

18 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Everyone is rightfully concerned about foreign nations interfering/influencing in our elections, but what about big corporations?  Google has the ability to influence elections by slightly adjusting search results.  But would they?

 

Until recently, giant corporations influencing our society was mostly limited to the oil giants. These social media companies controlling the flow of public information is a very new thing. Even though they fall under the umbrella of "private enterprise", the influence they have is great and undeniable. They got very big, very fast and regulators are still playing catch up. I'm torn here because I am all for the free market and private businesses but at the same time, Google can't be allowed to have the final say in how the West is shaped going forward.  

[XenoFish]

[AnchorSteam]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Peoples heads would explode.

LET THEM.

I refuse to limit myself for the sake of other people's fragility and ignorance. 

The damned Republican Party won't mean anything until it starts doing the same thing.

[Vorg]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

I don't trust Google or YouTube.

Or Facebook. The guy made Billions selling information on its users. No one online owns me. You here that Saru? No one..    jk

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Or Facebook. The guy made Billions selling information on its users. No one online owns me. You here that Saru? No one..    jk

I see it as nothing more than a propaganda machine. YouTube to me is the worst offender. 

[+OverSword]

6 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Or Facebook. The guy made Billions selling information on its users. No one online owns me. You here that Saru? No one..    jk

jk?  So Saru does own you then. 

[XenoFish]

Just now, OverSword said:

jk?  So Saru does own you then. 

Its a rental agreement.

[Gromdor]

There has been a few attempts to allow corporations to vote in elections.  With Corporate Person hood, Citizen's United, and the granting of religious constitutional rights the logical continuation of this trend might very well lead that way.  Arguments have been made that they own more, contribute more, and are more responsible citizens than the bulk of Americans.  There is a big push to curb legal immigration due to a fear that they would pay little to no taxes, be on welfare, and generally contribute little to society- basically that they would be unfit citizens.  Unfortunately, by this measure, Romney's 47% of Americans would fit in this category.  So with that being said, there is plenty of proof that there are Americans out there that think Corporations should be able to influence elections more than the average citizen.

As for Google in this particular case,  I can totally see them doing it.  Why wouldn't they?  With the repeal of Net Neutrality, they are free to throttle any news or service they want and it is up to the consumer to force Google to change with their use/buying habits.

There has been a lot of push-back against Fake News.  This really has just made it easier for companies to censor.  They are just acting against Fake News just as the public is clamoring for.  Given that most "news" these days actually come from news commentators who add their own opinion/interpretation to any given news item, it is actually pretty easy to find something false or deceptive to justify removal.  Look at Alex Jones.

Do I think it is okay?  No.  But whenever issues come up to curb corporate power (Net Neutrality, Citizen's United judgment, etc.) we gleefully deny it.  Cutting regulations and limiting government control and all that.....

Edited September 13, 2018 by Gromdor

[Setton]

I thought companies could support whichever candidate they liked..? 

Unless that only applies if they like your candidate? 

Little different to a foreign government interfering. 

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

I thought companies could support whichever candidate they liked..? 

Unless that only applies if they like your candidate? 

Little different to a foreign government interfering. 

They can. However if say Google is blocking information in order to present what they want people to see. Then you have a problem. 

[DingoLingo]

actually it would not surprise me.. the various media outlets do.. Fox news is Pro Trump.. but that is Murdoch for you.. he did the same here with his news outlets for the Lib's..

me I do not trust one side of the media or the other.. both are full of BS and lies.. you need to watch both and weed out what each side is not saying.. then look at the independent news are saying..  

so when I see people say.. Foxnews speaks only the truth.. CNN is the real platform for truth and honesty.. MSNBC are factual.. I just think.. you poor little brainwashed sheep.. 

 

 

[Habitat]

Some say the only things to believe in a newspaper, are the date, and the price per copy. However, this isn't strictly correct, I recall early editions of my local paper, being recalled on a Saturday morning, after it was discovered that the price had been erroneously printed as the same as the week-day editions, but Saturday's should have been the usual higher price !

[Setton]

8 hours ago, XenoFish said:

They can. However if say Google is blocking information in order to present what they want people to see. Then you have a problem. 

As mentioned in another thread, if only you had a law to stop ISPs artificially prioritising or throttling content. 

Anyway, why is it inherently a problem if Google chooses to show certain things and not others. It's a free market and there are other search engines. 

[SHaYap]

The Google search engine is based on algorithms that present results of prior and previous search results, not on volume based on popularity but on frequency. It does not matter if there are a thousand or ten thousand, if just out of ten results and the greater percentage is 5.5 then that 5.5% is the first hits presented as a result to any query, that's what made Google successfully famous, not as a bastion of accuracy based on truth, merely the reality of trending percentages.

~ 

[Dark_Grey]

19 hours ago, Gromdor said:

There has been a lot of push-back against Fake News.  This really has just made it easier for companies to censor.  They are just acting against Fake News just as the public is clamoring for.  Given that most "news" these days actually come from news commentators who add their own opinion/interpretation to any given news item, it is actually pretty easy to find something false or deceptive to justify removal.  Look at Alex Jones.

It did not take long before CNN, Google, Facebook and other big media companies started ad campaigns vowing to "fight fake news"

The real issue, and this transcends social media, is that no one can agree on what constitutes "fake news". The divide between the left and the right has become irreparable as each side is living it's their own reality. When you refuse to listen to what the opposition is saying, immediately dismissing it as fake news, you severely limit your world view. You start seeing things through a single lense and that alters your perception of what's actually happening. No wonder Democrats and Republicans can't have healthy discussions any more - they are each indoctrinated in to whatever "news reality" they subscribe to. 

Bringing my point home, the term "fake news" has become subjective so looking for articles on Google means you are now subscribing to whatever news reality Google believes in. Considering how many people use Google, well, you can see how that becomes a problem in the long run.

[Dark_Grey]

6 hours ago, third_eye said:

The Google search engine is based on algorithms that present results of prior and previous search results, not on volume based on popularity but on frequency. It does not matter if there are a thousand or ten thousand, if just out of ten results and the greater percentage is 5.5 then that 5.5% is the first hits presented as a result to any query, that's what made Google successfully famous, not as a bastion of accuracy based on truth, merely the reality of trending percentages.

The base algorithm does that. It can be, and has been, tweaked to favor certain news outlets over others. Google is manipulating the results based on the personal beliefs of some employees

[aztek]

Just now, Dark_Grey said:

It did not take long before CNN, Google, Facebook and other big media companies started ad campaigns vowing to "fight fake news"

 

but they are fake news. of course they want to fight FN themselves, this way they are safe, cuz if someone else fights it, they will be targeted, rightfully so

[+OverSword]

17 hours ago, Setton said:

I thought companies could support whichever candidate they liked..? 

Unless that only applies if they like your candidate? 

Little different to a foreign government interfering. 

Isn't there some kind of law or FCC regulation that media have to give candidates equal time?  That's for a reason, time to regulate social media on this issue.  But thank the stars despite googles efforts the traitor clinton lost.

[Dark_Grey]

24 minutes ago, aztek said:

but they are fake news. of course they want to fight FN themselves, this way they are safe, cuz if someone else fights it, they will be targeted, rightfully so

I think some people in those companies genuinely believe they are fighting fake news. I also think some people in those companies are using the public's fear of fake news to omit stories that shareholders/execs/producers don't like. Ironically, that creates a narrative of fake news and the divide between the left and the right grows by an inch. By fighting what they see as "fake news", they often get themselves labeled as fake news.

[Farmer77]

On 9/13/2018 at 1:34 PM, OverSword said:

Everyone is rightfully concerned about foreign nations interfering/influencing in our elections, but what about big corporations?  Google has the ability to influence elections by slightly adjusting search results.  But would they?

 

I saw the headline and thought its possible, then I saw "Alex Jones Lite" was the one peddling the information.

[DingoLingo]

On 9/14/2018 at 11:09 PM, OverSword said:

Isn't there some kind of law or FCC regulation that media have to give candidates equal time?  That's for a reason, time to regulate social media on this issue.  But thank the stars despite googles efforts the traitor clinton lost.

I think the only people that thought clinton would win out right was clinton herself.. hell I thought trump was a joke when he first ran (and I still honestly think he did it as a bit of grand standing until he realised he was in with a chance) 

you guys seriously need a 3rd party to get away from the two party system..