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

10 minutes ago, Setton said:

Can't be, @OverSword has spoken.

Ha! Ha!! Ha!!!, well I am sorry to burst his bubble.:tsu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Setton said:

Can't be, @OverSword has spoken.

My source being influencewatchdog.org and the one you quoted being wikipedia.  Perhaps you don't know but anyone can go in and input whatever they like on wikipedia.  :tu:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michelle said:

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.

No, it's called a theory until it is proven. A conspiracy is defined as:

1; secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:

2: the action of plotting or conspiring:

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

 

 

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
Double Post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Setton said:

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.

 

That could be true if the media in general were not so obviously leftist.  There is one large MSM entity in the USA which is right (Fox) and every other large entity is left, (CNN, MSNBC, NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.).  That's why watchdog organizations are necessary, we are generally being fed a lopsided narrative and not the truth.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

My source being influencewatchdog.org and the one you quoted being wikipedia.  Perhaps you don't know but anyone can go in and input whatever they like on wikipedia.  :tu:

I happened to glance into this thread and couldn't help but notice this being the first paragraph of influencewatchdog.org:

 "The Media Research Center (MRC) is a right-of-center media watchdog. MRC provides commentary on news reports published by mainstream media outlets and illustrates what it characterizes as implicit and explicit left-of-center bias in the metropolitan print media, cable news, and over-the-air television news."

The whole purpose of the organization is to demonstrate left wing bias in media.  The have a war chest of $15 million.  So like Setton was saying, it is a heavily funded organization with a predetermined conclusion that they are seeking evidence for.

Now personally, I believe in "Trust, but verify" so I looked at the claims in Michelle's link but there isn't enough there for me to verify.  They are just making claims, expecting people to believe them, and giving little to no information for people to check for themselves.  I'm thinking, they are just being paid to put out propoganda.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, various 'examples' in the report are for the most part claims unverifiable within the report itself.

I can at least look at #41.

I decided to ask the Gemini algorithm about Trump and Biden's memory problems.

I received an identical answer both times (see screenshot).

"I'm still learning how to answer this question. In the meantime, try Google Search."

I suppose, given the OP, I shouldn't be very surprised that easily falsifiable information was spewn out into the world, but it's always a little disappointing to see.

 

Screenshot_20240319-222236.png

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

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

it's a shibboleth. within a given context, if you have to ask "who is they", you are they. and by your question we all know who is they and who is we and why we are all together. i'm crying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

it's a shibboleth. within a given context, if you have to ask "who is they", you are they. and by your question we all know who is they and who is we and why we are all together. i'm crying.

You're gibbering.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You're gibbering.

only partially

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

 

The whole purpose of the organization is to demonstrate left wing bias in media.  The have a war chest of $15 million.  So like Setton was saying, it is a heavily funded organization with a predetermined conclusion that they are seeking evidence for.

 

So are you the type that thinks most crime is caused by policing it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

 I'm thinking, they are just being paid to put out propoganda.

i've got $15 to form a underfunded organization to prove this. want to join?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2024 at 9:52 AM, 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

The premise here seems to be "no right-thinking person would EVER vote liberal."

First of all, who or what is MRC?  It appears that it's just two people who are very fond of the "election was stolen" meme.

Second, what's their research methodology?  I see this quote from a link in the PDF paper: MRC Free Speech America researchers searched Google for “presidential campaign websites,” but the search engine did not display a single Republican candidate on its first page of results the day before the first Republican Party presidential primary debate on Wednesday. 

But they don't say which browsers and whether they started with a clean history and clean cookies or not.  When I use the same keywords "presidential campaign websites", I don't get ANY candidates on the first page.  Just ads and info scraper ("we have all the best presidential campaign websites here at this link!") pages. If I remove the quotes, I get Trump's website first and Biden's second and Library of Congress archives for the campaigns.

So I'm saying "sloppy research by people who don't know how to do information retrieval."

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

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, OverSword said:

My source being influencewatchdog.org and the one you quoted being wikipedia.  Perhaps you don't know but anyone can go in and input whatever they like on wikipedia.  :tu:

And it'll get edited again.  It's not a "one and done" and if it's contentious, the Wikipedia community decides if the rules are being followed.

You could make a case for liberal (or conservative) bias if any article had just one edit and then was locked down and could never be changed again.  But this isn't true.

Edited by Kenemet
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So are you the type that thinks most crime is caused by policing it?

They aren't policing it.  They get paid to find something.

If my sole job was to find leprachauns and someone gave me $15 million to do it.  I'd find leprachauns even if I have to make it up.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

It's not a "one and done" and if it's contentious, the Wikipedia community decides if the rules are being followed.

If anyone bothers to complain, so.....:passifier:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

They aren't policing it.  They get paid to find something.

If my sole job was to find leprachauns and someone gave me $15 million to do it.  I'd find leprachauns even if I have to make it up.  

So you are not honest.  I would report that there is no evidence of leprechauns.  Instead of attacking the source maybe the detractors here would like to dispute the information presented.  Show us how this is not true and Google did not manipulate access to the information that is pointed out.  I know personally that Google does bury search items as I have found information I looked up one  day and the next day the same search would not pull up anything useful.  Using my browser history was the only way to find the same article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So you are not honest.  I would report that there is no evidence of leprechauns.  Instead of attacking the source maybe the detractors here would like to dispute the information presented.  Show us how this is not true and Google did not manipulate access to the information that is pointed out.  I know personally that Google does bury search items as I have found information I looked up one  day and the next day the same search would not pull up anything useful.  Using my browser history was the only way to find the same article.

We've already disputed the information.  Kenement gave specific examples and I can't investigate/duplicate the claims the report  made because there isn't enough information.  

Just like I can't verify your claim that google buried your web site.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

We've already disputed the information.  Kenement gave specific examples and I can't investigate/duplicate the claims the report  made because there isn't enough information.  

Just like I can't verify your claim that google buried your web site.  

Do you deny that Google has manipulated search algorithms during elections to favor certain information over other?  In other words obviously has not happened.

Edited by OverSword
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Do you deny that Google has manipulated search algorithms during elections to favor certain information over other?  In other words obviously has not happened.

I haven't been able to personally duplicate the effect as claimed by the report.  Maybe it's regional.  Maybe it's my browser.  Maybe it's my cookies influencing my preferences/google search. Maybe the deep state has hacked my computer and puts what it wants.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

So you are not honest.  I would report that there is no evidence of leprechauns.  Instead of attacking the source maybe the detractors here would like to dispute the information presented.  Show us how this is not true and Google did not manipulate access to the information that is pointed out. 

How?

As I posted previously, the OP doesn't provide enough detail on the "examples" it presents for anyone to follow up.

A classic sign of misrepresented research.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, OverSword said:

So you are not honest.  I would report that there is no evidence of leprechauns.  Instead of attacking the source maybe the detractors here would like to dispute the information presented.  Show us how this is not true and Google did not manipulate access to the information that is pointed out.  I know personally that Google does bury search items as I have found information I looked up one  day and the next day the same search would not pull up anything useful.  Using my browser history was the only way to find the same article.

Quite easy... browsers "bury" information depending on what you've been looking at.  Don't believe me?  Try this experiment:

  • * Bring up three different browsers (say, Firefox, Edge, Chrome) and do a search ("Presidential candidates" with the quote marks around the search terms.) 
  • * hit ENTER 
  • * you're going to get three different results from Google, based on what you last searched for in that browser.
  • * now try all three on Bing, DuckDuckGo, and any other search engine.  Can you predict what will happen?

Yup.  Different results every time.

Now, results also change depending on who's tinkering with what pages and who's bought what advertising.  This goes on constantly.

  • Wait two hours
  • Clear your browser cache on all three browsers
  • Repeat your Google search with the EXACT same words and quote marks
  • Then try it with other search engines

Can you predict whether you'll see the same items in the same order on the second try? 

I predict you won't see the same results..

So, yes, this "paper" is lame methodology by people who haven't any idea how search engine crawlers and browsers work.  Anyone who's worked with search engine optimization is well aware of this simple trick.

 

Edited by Kenemet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Quite easy... browsers "bury" information depending on what you've been looking at.  Don't believe me?  Try this experiment:

  • * Bring up three different browsers (say, Firefox, Edge, Chrome) and do a search ("Presidential candidates" with the quote marks around the search terms.) 
  • * hit ENTER 
  • * you're going to get three different results from Google, based on what you last searched for in that browser.
  • * now try all three on Bing, DuckDuckGo, and any other search engine.  Can you predict what will happen?

Yup.  Different results every time.

Now, results also change depending on who's tinkering with what pages and who's bought what advertising.  This goes on constantly.

  • Wait two hours
  • Clear your browser cache on all three browsers
  • Repeat your Google search with the EXACT same words and quote marks
  • Then try it with other search engines

Can you predict whether you'll see the same items in the same order on the second try? 

I predict you won't see the same results..

So, yes, this "paper" is lame methodology by people who haven't any idea how search engine crawlers and browsers work.  Anyone who's worked with search engine optimization is well aware of this simple trick.

 

Funny, I often find places I've already been by duplicating searches.  The search usually autofills because I've already searched for it even months later as I did this morning trying to find an actors name I had already looked up by typing the character and TV show I saw them on.  And this wouldn't be a popular search as it was the TV show Maverick from the 1950's. I guess that is just a fluke as I should never be able to have a duplicate experience :rolleyes:  Get real.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Funny, I often find places I've already been by duplicating searches.  The search usually autofills because I've already searched for it even months later as I did this morning trying to find an actors name I had already looked up by typing the character and TV show I saw them on.  And this wouldn't be a popular search as it was the TV show Maverick from the 1950's. I guess that is just a fluke as I should never be able to have a duplicate experience :rolleyes:  Get real.

You don't expect an actor's body of work in the fifties to change, so of course you would expect to get the same result. 

I googled "2024 POTUS Campaign" and got a number of articles giving an overview of all candidates.  The first page I got dedicated to an individual was Trump's Wikipedia page.

I don't know where Biden's page was, bit it was not in the first page of results.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

:whistle: I don't reply to some people.  Sorry.  I reply to people that answer questions once in a while when asked.

Edited by OverSword
  • Sad 1
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.