#MuhPrivateTechOverlords: Google's Search Term Suggestions Suppress "Emails" From Possible List of Searches Beginning "Hillary Clinton e-"

Duck Duck Go suggests emails pretty near the top of the list.

So does Bing.

Google doesn't mention them at all.

The entire last 30-40 minutes of The Creepy Line is about Google's deliberate suppression of negative search results for candidates it supports, like Hillary Clinton. Throughout 2015 and 2016, Google kept all negative search results out of the top ten results for searches on Hillary Clinton.

Google of course allowed negative results to appear in searches for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

The psychologist/researcher Dr. Robert Epstein conducted four different studies to see how suppression of negative search results could sway an election -- one hypothetical one in Australia, one hypothetical one in the US, one real one in India during the Indian elections, and one real one in the US during the 2016 elections.

When he looked down a list of the first ten search results for Hillary Clinton, he noticed that all ten were biased in her favor. He said to the camera, approximately, "If I were doing this, I wouldn't have made all ten of the first results positive for Hillary. I would have been more subtle and included a couple of bad results so it wasn't so blatant."

He found that nearly everyone was influenced in favor of the candidate whose negative search results were suppressed, though not everyone who shifted in opinion towards Hillary Clinton would actually vote for her.

He estimated that the percentage of the population who could be swayed to actually change votes via this simple procedure -- which, I remind you, Google is already running on us -- is ten percent.

Few elections are even won by so much.

He also found that one group was especially persuadable by this technique:

Moderate Republicans.

Who, I posit, have a much higher than normal sensitivity about their status as proper and respectable people in society -- the What Will the Neighbors Think effect -- which may account for their higher-than-normal gullibility when Almighty Google tells them that All the Good and Smart People are only saying nice things about the Democrat.

But whatever, they're a neutral platform. It is written right there in the Constitution itself that trillion-dollar Monster Tech companies should be rewarded with lawsuit immunity based on a lie (that they are neutral platforms) while they deliberately work to manipulate the voting public of the US.

We've just conducted endless investigations into whether or not Russia spent a couple hundred thousand dollars on FaceBook memes to influence an election.

Let's not ask any questions at all about whether or not trillion-dollar monopoly Google is making interference in US elections one of his top corporate priorities.

The media has been writing news to appeal to Google and FaceBook for almost a decade now. The media needs to appeal to them to get their stories read.

What possible danger could their be in politicians crafting their policies to appeal to Google to induce that Internet Search Monopoly to suppress negative search results about them?

Why, none at all. #MuhPrivateMonopolisticTyrant must be protected.

posted by Ace of Spades at 06:28 PM

| Access Comments