It's difficult to believe that anyone with a modicum of intelligence and/or integrity could continue to support such a clown.
The impossible Whopper is hard to tell apart from the real thing, but it has more calories and costs more. I’ll stick with the Whopper thank you very much.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/us/politics/google-votes-election-trump.html Fact-Checking Trump’s Claim That Google ‘Manipulated’ Millions of Votes for Clinton After making baseless claims of voter fraud, the president has turned to a new way of explaining his loss of the popular vote in 2016. This lacks evidence. Mr. Trump lost the popular vote by almost 2.9 million in the 2016 election and has long attributed this loss to baseless claims of voter fraud. Now Mr. Trump suggests that he would have lost the popular vote by a much smaller margin, or even won it, were it not for Google’s machinations. He appears to be referring to a disputed estimate given by Robert Epstein, a psychologist and former editor in chief at Psychology Today who says he supported and voted for Hillary Clinton. In a 2017 white paper, Mr. Epstein examined how Google Search might have influenced undecided voters in the 2016 election by providing more positive results for one candidate than the other. He estimated that the search results may have swayed “at least 2.6 million votes to Clinton.” When he testified to Congress this summer, Mr. Epstein added that the estimate was a “rock bottom minimum” and that up to 10.4 million votes could have been shifted to Mrs. Clinton. In an interview, Mr. Epstein took issue with Mr. Trump’s characterization of his work. “I’ve never said Google manipulated the 2016 elections,” he said. “The range of numbers he listed in the tweet is also incorrect.” Panagiotis Metaxas, a computer science professor at Wellesley College, emphasized that the white paper showed a possibility — “what such an influence could have been ifGoogle was manipulating its electoral search results” — not a conclusive fact. “I and other researchers who have been auditing search results for years know that this did not happen,” Mr. Metaxas said. “I think that, in his congressional hearing, Dr. Epstein is misrepresenting the situation.” He noted that Google does “sanitize” its search results, prioritizing more trusted sources while devaluing low-quality information sources. (Here’s a more detailed explanation of how Google Search works.) The white paper also came with huge caveats. First, it was not peer-reviewed or rigorously evaluated by other researchers. It was based on the daily online searches of just 95 participants, 21 of whom were self-described undecided voters — a small sample size to extrapolate to millions of voters, experts said. (Mr. Epstein says that the statistical significance of his findings was high.) Their election-related search results were then given to another group of people who evaluated whether the results were biased toward Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton, and concluded that most favored Mrs. Clinton. Searches conducted on other websites like Yahoo and Bing did not display the same bias, according to the paper. Then, Mr. Epstein applied his previous research demonstrating that biased search results could shift voting preferences by 20 percent or more to reach his baseline estimate of 2.6 million people affected. But it takes “a leap of faith” to connect Mr. Epstein’s experimental results to actual election outcomes, said Nicholas Diakopoulos, an assistant professor in communication studies at Northwestern University. (Mr. Diakopoulos’s own research does show that Google Search results favor Democrats.) “There’s a substantial shift in context, and a difference in asking someone in an experiment about likely voting behavior and how they might actually act during an election,” Mr. Diakopoulos said. A more meticulous scientific analysis measuring the impact of Google Search on election outcomes could, for example, take into account voter history or other sources of election information. Given the difficulties in disaggregating the impact of Google and the paper’s lack of methodological detail, Mr. Diakopoulos said, “I am skeptical of the validity of the estimates.”
The most hilarious part of this fake narrative is this, if you ask me: Who on earth goes to google and just types in a candidate's name, with no modifier, to help decide their vote? Nobody but octogenarians uses the Internet in that way, and they all voted Trump like Fox told them to.
Even if Google's algorithm filters out pro-Trump bias, think of all the other media platforms that do the opposite... namely Youtube being the absolute worst. I cannot lookup a video on rock climbing or surfing without getting inundated with pro-trump conspiracy theory garbage. Nothing about my search preferences says "This guy wants to watch PragU, Ben Shapiro, and Alex Jones all day long". Then there is Facebook aka 8Chan lite... don't get me started with that garbage cesspool. Trump's claims here are so over the top mainly because he seems to think his supporters are dumb enough to think that Google is in charge of the voting machines or something which says alot about what Trump thinks about the intelligence of his supporters. But even if it is just a discussion about influence based on availability of information, then there are far more offenders on the other side of the equation, and until all political propaganda is moved outside of social media, then there needs to be some sort of balance.
what gets filtered does sway opinions. This absolutely shapes what people think and associate... if they think Trump Russia ia the most searched for they make that association without thinking. Or Clinton Body Count.
Here's an interesting experiment to do with Google images; type in black couple; now hispanic couple; now white couple. Do the same with black/white inventors; See anything strange? Just saying...
It's amazing how America's extremely online uncles, who've been swayed by email chains, Facebook memes and doctored videos for years, suddenly have a better understanding of Google's search algorithm than anybody else outside of Silicon Valley. Truly inspiring times.
Dr Robert Epstein, the man Trump is parroting, is also the same man who allowed malware ads to be put on his site, to which Google then correctly warned visitors about the malware on the site. He then tried to sue Google, unsuccessfully, and has, seemingly, wanted to take Google down ever since. While he may be a “Clinton supporter” (note: at one point, so was Trump), his bias against Google should disqualify him automatically. Go check out his twitter account as it is just a constant stream of attacks on Google. But, the right likes their sound bites and it doesn’t matter the source. Already saw this tweet making its rounds this morning:
I missed it if there was any allegation that Google intentionally used its algorithms to create a bias against Trump. So far as I can tell, Google did its normal thing it does with everything on the internet to deliver the most relevant links it can to the googler. It's probably not their fault that Trump produced a mountain of negative publicity with all the stupid and racist things he's said and done.
