Google manipulating negative search terms about Hillary

Google is biased towards the championship Rocket's teams.

I typed in "clutch" and got "clutch masters, clutch master cylinders, and clutch city".

 

I wasn't convinced at first (Google admitted they alter auto-complete results)

But when they showed how searches for Trump/Sanders matched with Bing/Yahoo, but searches for Hillary did not, that was pretty damning.

 

LOL. This is great stuff.

 

you guys are dense. just because google is manipulating for clinton doesn't mean they do it for everybody. no one is making that claim so arguing that is stupid. google can damn near do anything with their code they can surely do something like this. those who code know it's at best a few lines of code to accomplish something like this. the video clearly showed differences between 3 search engines and other users have corroborated their findings.

 

Let's see... the media favors Democrats. Universities favor Democrats. And now, Google favors Democrats.

Let's compare that to the groups that favor Republicans: the NRA. The oil industry. The insurance industry. Radio talk shows hosts like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter. Fox News. Televangelists.

Hmm...

 

Don't forget science. It has a long recognized liberal bias.

 

Type Donald trump mus...

 

Shhhh... dammit. Oh well.

Trump made Google great again.

 

Google does manipulate search results for everyone, all the time. Many different people have found different results on Clinton today. And we've shown the same sorts of changes, alterations and variations for other famous people.

If anyone wants to claim they go out of their busy, money-making way to do something special and specific for HRC, that person better show us the code or really have proof.

What our counter examples show is that you can find anything you want by sifting through the tealeaves of recommended search results on Google. It's ever-changing and tailored.

But anyway, you've come to the same result: B-Bob is really stupid, or at least not nearly as smart as you. Congrats on that, but I suggest, given my overt stupidity, you just put me on ignore. You've got better things to do and smarter people with whom to confirm your bias.

 

What is dense is the level of paranoia you obviously suffer from, with all respect due.

 

****ing hooli

 

Thanks for posting an actually interesting article.

I still haven't had someone explain why a company with ambitions growth and financial targets, with demanding share-holders (many of them incredibly conservative, mind you) would expend resources on slightly modifying search results for a certain candidate.

They (google) would have to be super convinced that the candidate was going to be very good for business or that the other candidate was going to be very bad for business. LOL.

If one of the smartest and most successful companies on the planet believes that, errr, ummm... are you sure you want to claim google is doing this?

 

I think Trump and the GOP should fight back by getting Yahoo and Alta Vista to filter their results...

 

Don't forget reality.

 

Swoly results are pretty good:

Swoly bible
swoley
swolly mammoth
swole jesus
-----------------

and bigtexx (just two x's):

big the rapper (!)
big texx
big texx burger surrey (!)
big texxor (!)

 

Here's a good explanation for why the idea that Google is suppressing negative Hillary searches is bunk.

https://medium.com/@rhea/hillary-cl...-sourcefed-not-google-3dd9a5c68ca1#.en3smwcy1

Fun fact. If you just search Hillary Clinton, among the autocomplete options are "email" and "benghazi". So if Google were suppressing results, they were doing a piss poor job of it.

 

I wouldn't begin to know the black box that's the google algorithm, but from previous searches I have realized that how formal you type things in can greatly alter things.

For example, if you google "Houston Rockets" you'll get autocompletes like roster, new forum, etc. But if you google "rockets" you'll get warriors, scores, etc.

So the fact that you typed Hilary and someone else typed Hilary Clinton can
be quite different. Usually people don't type full name if you just want to get the latest dirt.

 

Hillary is an elite hacker.

 

I think this is textbook projection. You were given specific examples to back up a stance, and all you did was turn it around and throw it back without any evidence. Ironically, you just proved his point.




If only Trump could discriminate against stupid people. We'd probably be better for it, but he would understandably lose his entire base.