How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election

[CaptFun]

politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html?ml=m_t1_2h#.VdW0KihiHu1

How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election
Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser.

By ROBERT EPSTEIN August 19, 2015

Read more: politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html#ixzz3jLw7b8De

America’s next president could be eased into office not just by TV ads or speeches, but by Google’s secret decisions, and no one—except for me and perhaps a few other obscure researchers—would know how this was accomplished.

Research I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections—indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs—than any company in history has ever had. Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson.

Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control …

There is Precedent In the Way Western Union Stealthily Backed Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876

… In the late 1800s, Western Union had a monopoly on communications in America, and just before to the election of 1876, the company did its best to assure that only positive news stories about Hayes appeared in newspapers nationwide. It also shared all the telegrams sent by his opponent’s campaign staff with Hayes’s staff.

Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today’s high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration.

I didn’t (and don’t) know much about Google backing Obama so much in 2008 and/or 2012 … but the first thing I thought of when seeing this story was the problem Rick Santorum had with Google in 2011-2012 – which I thought might have been fixed at some point but never was!

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorums-google-problem-nasty-definition-sinks-search/

Santorum’s Google Problem: Nasty Definition Sinks in Search

March 1, 2012
By AMY BINGHAM

Google’s algorithm may now be on Rick Santorum’s side, but the vile re-definition of “Santorum” that topped the search engine’s results for over six years, is here to stay.

Spreading Santorum, the website created by gay rights activist Dan Savage to propagate a nasty anal-sex related definition of “Santorum,” appears further down on the first search results page for some users, and even further down on page 2 for other users.

But Savage says the vulgar definition isn’t going away any time soon.

“The damage is done,” he said. “Toxic e-mission accomplished.”

I always felt bad for Santorum who got badgered by less than neutral religious questions from all quarters of the media … and when his answers were not contrary to Church teaching on the “controversial” matters, he got pilloried as a hater or a bigot (IMO untrue though I don’t know him). At any rate Dan Savage’s “campaign” was and is disgusting and Google seemed to proliferate it – only correcting things slightly after Santorum won 11 states in GOP primaries by March, 2012.

To this day just GOOGLING “Santorum” (as many have) still takes readers to a page that prominently (if not as EMINENTLY … that is … on TOP of the list) features the filthy Savage new “definition” of Santorum’s last name.

Oops - It’s back to numbers 1, 3, 4 and 6 on the search page now! :banghead:

Number 2 on the page is a neutral Wikipedia bio of Rick Santorum. *< Which is what many voters might “search” to visit for more info on a candidate running for office.
*
Number 5 on the same page is the candidates’ own website.

google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=santorum&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 < see for yourself!

Your thoughts?

 

[DeniseNY]

politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html?ml=m_t1_2h#.VdW0KihiHu1

How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election
Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser.

I didn’t (and don’t) know much about Google backing Obama so much in 2008 and/or 2012 … but the first thing I thought of when seeing this story was the problem Rick Santorum had with Google in 2011-2012 – which I thought might have been fixed at some point but never was!

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorums-google-problem-nasty-definition-sinks-search/

Santorum’s Google Problem: Nasty Definition Sinks in Search

I always felt bad for Santorum who got badgered by less than neutral religious questions from all quarters of the media … and when his answers were not contrary to Church teaching on the “controversial” matters, he got pilloried as a hater or a bigot (IMO untrue though I don’t know him). At any rate Dan Savage’s “campaign” was and is disgusting and Google seemed to proliferate it – only correcting things slightly after Santorum won 11 states in GOP primaries by March, 2012.

To this day just GOOGLING “Santorum” (as many have) still takes readers to a page that prominently (if not as EMINENTLY … that is … on TOP of the list) features the filthy Savage new “definition” of Santorum’s last name.

Oops - It’s back to numbers 1, 3, and 4 on the search page now! :banghead:

Number 2 on the page is a neutral Wikipedia bio of Rick Santorum. *< Which is what many voters might “search” to visit for more info on a candidate running for office.
*
Number 6 on the same page is the candidates’ own website.

google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=santorum&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 < see for yourself!

Your thoughts?

My thoughts? People like Dan Savage live in the gutter and the fact that anyone would place any stock in what he has to say about politics and the future of this country is beyond me.

 

[CatholicSheila]

Wow.

Now I wish I hadn’t googled Santorum. If I was American, I’d be tempted to give him a sympathy vote if he was running.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Google may have backed Obama/Biden, but they also have funneled their money through the Caymans and Ireland to avoid Obama/Biden tax policy.

 

[revert_jen]

Yet another reason to use some other search engine. I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago for privacy reasons.

–Jen

 

[EmeraldOak]

Never thought about this before. Scary stuff!

 

[CaptFun]

Yet another reason to use some other search engine. I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago for privacy reasons.

–Jen

Thanks. I’ve used Google for years. They used to be so much better for quickly finding stuff than the other search engines. This info has me pondering a trial there or elsewhere. I’ve SEEN this engine but haven’t used it.

As a (former) Communications major, I’ve been aware of how various media can be crafted to shape all ensuing debates on the intellectual level and shape our whole pattern of thinking if we are not vigilant enough to be discerning.

I might visit DuckDuckGo (for the first time) now … submitting “Santorum” as my test case for cyber neutrality of inquiry. :compcoff:

 

[7_Sorrows]

My thoughts? People like Dan Savage live in the gutter and the fact that anyone would place any stock in what he has to say about politics and the future of this country is beyond me.

Dan Savage does seem like a low life to do this. disgusting!

 

[CarolNoel]

Dan Savage does seem like a low life to do this. disgusting!

He is a low life.