Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008


Michelle

Recommended Posts

MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates–regardless of party–who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice. From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its “great strength and resources and reach” to advance its leftist values. Google’s outsized influence on information technology, the body politic and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America’s elections. The most recent example was recorded after Google artificial intelligence Gemini (formerly Bard) refused to answer questions damaging to Biden. MRC Free Speech America research shows that throughout a 16-year period (from 2008 through February 2024), carefully crafted studies and numerous reports have consistently demonstrated the tech behemoth’s election meddling.

cont...

MRC Google Election Interference Report.pdf-1710439680476.pdf

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh this should be fun.  According to a lot of our fellow posters big media does not have a bias towards the left :passifier:

  • Like 6
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Oh this should be fun.  According to a lot of our fellow posters big media does not have a bias towards the left :passifier:

Well, they always ask people to prove it. I don't expect some people to believe this study but it will be fun to see how they wriggle around it. :lol:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There’s no doubt that the internet and all social media platforms in this country have been used to spread disinformation and propaganda, originating domestically as well as from our rivals/enemies overseas. I’d even argue it predates 2008. This **** takes a lot of strategic planning.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michelle said:

Well, they always ask people to prove it. I don't expect some people to believe this study but it will be fun to see how they wriggle around it. :lol:

And when you prove it they will then attack the source.  It isn't like the NY Times or any of their go to major media sources are going to admit to bias.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michelle said:

MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates–regardless of party–who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice. From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its “great strength and resources and reach” to advance its leftist values. Google’s outsized influence on information technology, the body politic and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America’s elections. The most recent example was recorded after Google artificial intelligence Gemini (formerly Bard) refused to answer questions damaging to Biden. MRC Free Speech America research shows that throughout a 16-year period (from 2008 through February 2024), carefully crafted studies and numerous reports have consistently demonstrated the tech behemoth’s election meddling.

cont...

MRC Google Election Interference Report.pdf-1710439680476.pdf

A few questions:

What is MRC?

How has Google interfered? By sharing false information or by deprioritising false information about left wing candidates?

The right love making these claims about tech giants. The 'evidence' usually boils down to a lot of handwaving away the fact that the pro-right information removed is usually false and the pro-left content not removed true.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michelle said:

MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates–regardless of party–who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice. From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its “great strength and resources and reach” to advance its leftist values. Google’s outsized influence on information technology, the body politic and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America’s elections. The most recent example was recorded after Google artificial intelligence Gemini (formerly Bard) refused to answer questions damaging to Biden. MRC Free Speech America research shows that throughout a 16-year period (from 2008 through February 2024), carefully crafted studies and numerous reports have consistently demonstrated the tech behemoth’s election meddling.

cont...

MRC Google Election Interference Report.pdf-1710439680476.pdf

Google's the digital Chuck Schumer 🤣 

I thought Democracy's didn't meddle in other Democracy's elections...things just keep getting stranger.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

What is MRC?

Media Research Center. As for the rest of it you have the same information as I do. I suppose you think most of the facts about Hunter Biden's laptop were false too. It was called a conspiracy until it could no longer be denied.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Setton said:

What is MRC?

 

The Media Rating Council (MRC) is a not-for-profit industry self regulatory body, established in 1963 at the request of US Congress, that audits and accredits media measurement products and data sources across Digital, Out-of-Home, Print, Radio, Television, and cross-media products.

13 minutes ago, Setton said:

How has Google interfered? By sharing false information or by deprioritising false information about left wing candidates?

 

https://cdn.mrc.org/static/pdfuploads/MRC Google Election Interference Report.pdf-1710439680476.pdf

Quote

The right love making these claims about tech giants. The 'evidence' usually boils down to a lot of handwaving away the fact that the pro-right information removed is usually false and the pro-left content not removed true.

A couple of examples from the report:

Quote

 

• In 2008, Google appeared to select the radical, young Barack Obama to help spur to victory over John McCain; meanwhile, it targeted support for Hillary Clinton for censorship, suspending the accounts of writers who wrote blogs critical of Obama during his primary race against Clinton.

• In 2012, Google once again favored Obama over Mitt Romney, and inconsistent with its stated policy, the tech giant refused to correct a “Google bomb” that smeared leading GOP primary candidate for president Rick Santorum

 

 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The Media Rating Council

I was close... 😳

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Michelle said:

I was close... 😳

No, you were right. Oversword is misattributing it to a more reputable source. Your source is actually a heavily biased right wing organisation.

Hardly a good source to criticise another platform for bias.

21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

 

A couple of examples from the report:

 

Unfortunately those examples don't provide any detail of what was removed, why accounts were censored or left up.

We only have a heavily biased organisation's word that those actions weren't justified.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

And when you prove it they will then attack the source.  

Right on cue 

🤣

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Setton said:

No, you were right. Oversword is misattributing it to a more reputable source. Your source is actually a heavily biased right wing organisation.

 

I stand corrected it is the Media Research Center, according to Influence watch dot org it is a right of center watchdog group not a heavily biased right wing organization.  @Setton When you are far enough left everything, even centrist's seem to be far right to your warped viewpoint.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Setton said:

Your source is actually a heavily biased right wing organisation.

Proof?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Proof?

They have no problem using heavily biased left wing organizations to justify their points.  These guys will quote SPLC like it is gospel.   CNN.  MSNBC....    then deny there is any bias.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I stand corrected it is the Media Research Center, according to Influence watch dot org it is a right of center watchdog group not a heavily biased right wing organization.  @Setton When you are far enough left everything, even centrist's seem to be far right to your warped viewpoint.

Which is why Americans think the centre is way to the right of where it is.

1 hour ago, Michelle said:

Proof?

Google, ironically.

Surely you looked up your own source before using it?

59 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

They have no problem using heavily biased left wing organizations to justify their points.  These guys will quote SPLC like it is gospel.   CNN.  MSNBC....    then deny there is any bias.

 

Feel free to point to me using any of those as unbiased sources.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edumakated said:

And when you prove it they will then attack the source.  It isn't like the NY Times or any of their go to major media sources are going to admit to bias.

Who is "they"? Is it an alternative source on which you're are trying to get a little preemptive attack?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Setton said:

Surely you looked up your own source before using it?

Because they are investigating left wing bias? Do you expect the left wing to police itself? HA that's a laugh. All they do is share their stories and report them almost word for word in lock step with their party without any investigation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Because they are investigating left wing bias? Do you expect the left wing to police itself? HA that's a laugh. All they do is share their stories and report them almost word for word in lock step with their party without any investigation.

What are you talking about?

I'm just checking you actually knew who your source was before posting the thread.

Seems you didn't.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Setton said:

What are you talking about?

I'm just checking you actually knew who your source was before posting the thread.

Seems you didn't.

And the source checked out as a right center organization with a clean record except for one complaint of bias from a far left counterpart decades ago.

I think we can predictably put Setton down as being too left to recognize Googles documented left bias. 

1*J7sQ1GTvPap9LF1jXhBr8g.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Setton said:

A few questions:

What is MRC?

The Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its mission is to “prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media exists and undermines traditional American values.” According to their about page, “MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media. This makes the MRC’s work unique within the conservative movement.”

In review, MRC does not produce original content but links to other websites such as MRCTV, Newsbusters, and CNS News. These sources frequently utilize strong loaded emotional language such as this: The Embarrassing Questions NBC’s Moderators NEVER Asked. Articles are typically properly sourced; however, they use the Questionable CNS News as a primary source. CNS News has failed numerous fact-checks by IFCN fact-checkers.

 

The primary purpose of MRC is to expose liberal bias in the media. They often claim there is a conspiracy in the media to promote liberalism while suppressing conservatism. Journalist Brian Montopoli of Columbia Journalism Review in 2005 labeled MRC “just one part of a wider movement by the far right to demonize corporate media” rather than “make the media better.” Essentially, MRC is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party.

Media Research Center strongly right-biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience, and a poor fact-check record by their primary sources.

 
4 hours ago, Setton said:

How has Google interfered? By sharing false information or by deprioritising false information about left wing candidates?

The right love making these claims about tech giants. The 'evidence' usually boils down to a lot of handwaving away the fact that the pro-right information removed is usually false and the pro-left content not removed true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

The Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its mission is to “prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media exists and undermines traditional American values.” According to their about page, “MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media. This makes the MRC’s work unique within the conservative movement.”

In review, MRC does not produce original content but links to other websites such as MRCTV, Newsbusters, and CNS News. These sources frequently utilize strong loaded emotional language such as this: The Embarrassing Questions NBC’s Moderators NEVER Asked. Articles are typically properly sourced; however, they use the Questionable CNS News as a primary source. CNS News has failed numerous fact-checks by IFCN fact-checkers.

 

The primary purpose of MRC is to expose liberal bias in the media. They often claim there is a conspiracy in the media to promote liberalism while suppressing conservatism. Journalist Brian Montopoli of Columbia Journalism Review in 2005 labeled MRC “just one part of a wider movement by the far right to demonize corporate media” rather than “make the media better.” Essentially, MRC is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party.

Media Research Center strongly right-biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience, and a poor fact-check record by their primary sources.

 

 

Can't be, @OverSword has spoken.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And the source checked out as a right center organization with a clean record except for one complaint of bias from a far left counterpart decades ago.

 

Any organisation that states its mission is to “prove that liberal bias in the media exists and undermines traditional American values.” is by definition heavily biased.

They've already decided the results of their research before starting.

Quote

I think we can predictably put Setton down as being too left to recognize Googles documented left bias. 

Except it isn't documented. Because neither you nor the MRC has provided specific examples of this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.