Report reveals Google’s manipulation of search results to influence outcomes.

by Arthur Foxake

The contributors to this blog are not the only people putting content online to have been called ‘conspiracy theorists’ for suggesting that Google has, for at least twenty years, been manipulating search results to its own benefit and the benefit of its clients. In the early days this was innocuous enough, organisations that paid to advertise of Google’s pages had their page links bumped up the search results table.

Later it became more sinister, when you understand that among Google’s clients were organisations including political parties, governments (of some very nasty dictatorships as well as the so – called democracies,) state security agencies, NGOs (non government organisations) promoting and assisting the mass migration of illiterate, unskilled third world males to the developed nations for the purpose of destabilising societies, and other organisations and corporate enterprises pursuing a globalist political agenda.

Yes, the proof is out there that Google (and other internet tech giants,) rather than ‘hostile foreign powers’ have been meddling in elections and manipulating public opinion on certain issues.

Dr. Robert Epstein: Google’s Ephemeral Experiences Manipulate People on a ‘Massive Scale’

Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and wel known critic of Google’s use of psychologial techniques to manipulate users decision making process by heavily censoring the information search users are fed, appeared on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss Google’s latest tactics in election manipulation ahead on the us 2020 presidenyial election, and how voters and political campaign managers can combat them with host Alex Marlow.


Robert Epstein – warning us about Google’s evil ambitions

Epstein and Breitbart News editor-in-chief  Marlow discussed the current state of Google’s business and political activities and how the company could use its technology to influence voters.

Host Alex Marlow examined Epstein’s research saying: “I think you put out some pretty hard data on how many votes you think were moved in the 2016 election and I think you estimated it was over two million or so, is that not the case?”

Epstein responded: “Well it was at least 2.6 million and it could have been as many as 10.4 million depending on how aggressive google was in using the various tools they have available to them to shift votes. I can’t pin it down exactly but I know it’s in that range.”

Discussing the need for a system capable of analysing Google search results and suggestions to detect political and commercial bias, Epstein stated: “We need big monitoring systems in place, I’m so far the only person that’s created monitoring systems, I did one in 2016 and one in 2018. I’m trying now to raise funds to build a very big monitoring system for 2020 and to monitor a lot more than Google search results, to monitor newsfeeds, answers that people are getting from their personal assistants.”

Epstein explained that monitoring search results and auto-suggest terms are so important when monitoring election interference, stating: “If you don’t monitor, you can’t go back in time and figure out what these companies were showing people because what they’re showing people is ephemeral. That’s the term that Google’s own employees use internally, they’re showing ephemeral experiences, those really short-lived experiences that kind of appear before your eyes and then disappear, like search results for example.”

Google have openly acknowledged that their algorithms are set up to skew search results against content or sites favouring conservative or libertarian politics, while raising the visibility of liberal or progressive supporting content.

Epstein continued: “They’re using ephemeral experiences to manipulate people on a massive scale, people don’t know they’re being manipulated, and there’s no record kept of those experiences, they’re just generated for you on the fly and then they disappear.”

Listen to the full interview on Breitbart News Daily here.

To us the only question here is why are people still using Google as a search engine? Any pretence to neutrality in raking search relults was abandoned long ago, now search results are ranked in whether they serve Google’s political or financial interests.

RELATED POSTS:
Report reveals Google’s manipulation of search results to influence outcomes.
After years of being called ‘conspiracy theorists’ the wise people who noticed how Google were manipulating search result listings to server the corporation’s business and political ambitions have been proved right …
How will you know who is tracking your internet enabled sex toys
Google omnibus

 

Research Shows Google’s Search Manipulations Tried To Rig Election For Hillary

Hillary Clinton was narrowly beaten by Trump, in fact her supporters still claim she won by virtue of gaining te larger number of votes, although they cannot possibly be unaware that the U.S. system is not quite that simple. Trump won under the rules as they have stood for many decades. Now in depth analysis of new media and internet content during the campaign shows Clinton would likely have lost by a much larger margin had Google, and other internet corporations including Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft not manipulated the search results and news feeds in her favor.

Even trending negative searches about the corrupt democrat were suppressed. According to an exclusive report from conservative news site Breitbart, the results are based on a 16 months long experiment involving a total of 1,800 people from across 50 U.S. states.

Participants were selected from diverse ideological and social backgrounds, including liberal, conservative, and moderate, professional, skilled and manual workers and various religious commitments. In order to account for prior biases, participants were required to judge political candidates that they were unfamiliar with.

The research showed clearly that the manipulation of search results pages in search engines can shift voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic –showing beyond reasonable doubt that Google’s algorithmic manipulation of results was attempting to rig the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton.

The voting preferences of participants who saw no search suggestions shifted toward the favored candidate by 37.1%. The voting preferences of participants in the search suggestion groups who saw only positive search suggestions shifted similarly (35.6%). However, the voting preferences of participants who saw three positive search suggestions and one negative search suggestion barely shifted (1.8%); this occurred because the negative search suggestion attracted more than 40% of the clicks (negativity bias). In other words, a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically. Participants who were shown four negative suggestions (and no positives) shifted away from the candidate shown in the search bar (-43.4%). -Epstein, Mohr, & Martinez, The Search Suggestion Effect, 2018

Led by Dr. Robert Epstein, the researchers concluded that by using this method of manipulation, search engines can shift a “50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.”  Therefore the Russian collusion meme pushed by the Democrats and mainstream media was always a hoax, probably created to divert attention from the scandals relating to various scandals Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, the real collusion during the 2016 election was not between Trump and the Russians, but between tech giants and their propaganda scheme and the Hillary Clinton campaign. This news page had reported many times on the unhealthily close relationships between The Obama Administration and Google, along with other tech companies.

It is no longer a conspiracy theory that Google is manipulating people who use its services. The company acknowledges it employes techniques recommended by psychologists and sociologists with the intention of influencing public opinion and personal decisions. Look at the amount of manipulation in Google’s “suggested” searches in comparison to those of Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo. The researchers showed that the search suggestion manipulation used against Trump during the 2016 election when the tech giant, as it has now admitted, suppresed negative search suggestions for Hillary Clinton while promoting through search suggestions, negative stories relating to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, remain in place and are being used to promote commercial products as well as political campaigns.

This is not a coincidence, especially when considering Google was the Clinton campaign’s largest corporate contributor. Google employees, including at least six high-ranking executives, donated more than $1.3 million to Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Call it censorship or manipulation, but the truth is…Google attempted to rig the election for Hillary Clinton by manipulating searches and suggestions, and therefore, voters minds.

RELATED POSTS:
Research Shows Google’s Search Manipulations Tried To Rig Election For Hillary
They’re at it again for 2020

Western Hypocrisy In Reporting News about Ukraine And Russia

Ukraine invited to join NATO – it’s deja vu all over again.

“While questions about Russia’s tactics remain, its strategy has become more clear: The Kremlin appears to have decided to prevent Ukraine turning West and leaving what Russia regards as its sphere of influence.”

Those words, from a CNN news report are typical of the hypocrisy displayed by mainstream media when reporting news from Ukraine, and the pro – American (OK, if you haven’t worked out yet that NATO is euphemism for U.S. State Department, you are not going to understand this article.)

I’m not really old enough to remember in detail but in the early 1960s, when the USA could have decided to meekly accept Cuba’s having turned away from the U.S. sphere of influence that had existed under the prior, corrupt, Cuban leader, Fulgensio Batista, and becoming instead a new Soviet satellite, under communist Fidel Castro, the then President, J. F. Kennedy took the world to the brink of nuclear war rather than surrender the strategically important client state.

With more current relevance perhaps, we need to consider, how the U.S. reacted to Cuba’s new best mate, The Soviet union trying to insert Soviet missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba, right next door to its southernmost state?

The crisis that erupted when Kennedy sent in the U S Marines is formally known as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. My Dad, having worked for the Quaker owned liberal newspaper, The News Chronicle until it folded in 1961 had just started for The Daily Express at the time and was not enjoying the pro war stance adopted by The Express. Still, a job’s a job.

In short, the USA and its allies were not prepared to tolerate a rival superpower opening up a military base from which strategic nuclear missiles could be launched right on it’s doorstep. And what powerful nation would tolerate it, it would be like …… em …….. like ……. erm …….like Ukraine or Poland joining NATO and then allowing the U S government to set up missile bases in those countries, close to Russia’s borders.

Don’t be on this fooled by the screeching of lefties on this, they who simplify the world by claiming there are only two races, black and white, only two cultures, secular atheism and religious fanaticism, that science is The One True God and that ‘we’ are good and ‘they’ are evil may like to wave their academic qualifications in our faces but forget that most of the great advances in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and technology were made by people who did not have a PhD in ‘Science-with-Origami’ from a university. Their opinion is worth no more than your or mine and as most of them only regurgitate propaganda they don’t really have any opinions of their own.

Russia will no more let the USA make Ukraine a client state from which Moscow can be threatened by US missiles than Washington would have allowed The Kremlin to deploy its nuclear weapons in Cuba. Putin is taking exactly the same stance as Kennedy did.

In 1962 The Soviets were seen as the danger to the world peace and democratic nations quickly lined up alongside the American government. Ironically while our leftie friends were traditionally sympathetic to the communist USSR, they are now very eager to support America, even though polls have shown that, globally, the U.S. is considered to be, by far, the most dangerous nation in the world — considerably more dangerous than Russia or China.

Are the news reporters, the editors, publishers and broadcasters and the managers, who run the news industry really so ignorant of the relevant history on this subject (the Cuban Missile Crisis, and its reverse analogue today in Ukraine), as they pretend to be?

Of not. But they want their public to remain that way (ignorant of hitorical truth, or too distracted by celebrity gossip to make the link), because the people who provide their revenue stream, their advertisers, want the public to stay ignorant, thus having no alternative but to trust the propaganda.

One of the basic human rights in a liberal democracy is the right to fr ee speech and for that right to have any meaning we must have a free press. I have said many times that we no longer live in democratic nations, the same corporate interests as control banking and the money supply, manufacturing and the extraction industries, agriculture and medicine also control news and the media.

An important component in the mechanism of control is controlled news, George Orwell predicted it in his novel 1984. By using controlled information to manipulate the public in the way that virtually all advertisers, all corporate finance directors, all CEO’s and all political leaders want them to be manipulated: to trust everything we are told by the machine, rather than questioning what does not make sense.

If you see any left wing (neo – Fascist) apparatchik ranting about how unreasonable Russia is being over Ukraine, just point them at this article. It’s doubtful that they will learn anything, but at least it will wind them up because they can’t stand anybody disagreeing with them.

RELATED POSTS:
Believe The Phoney Narrative Or Be Branded a Conspiracy Theorist.

US General Breedlove admits: NATO did foment war in Ukraine

Left Wing Elitists despise The Masses They Claim To Care About
The Corporate Threat To Free Speech
Europe’s bureaucratic empire
Economic War Starts Over Ukraine
Who was behind the regime change coup in Ukraine
Was the Ukraine Revolution US led
Putin Will Outmanoeuvre Obama In (relitavely) Bloodless World War
Obama Is Stupid To Try Bullying Russia
The Importance Of Free Speech
Free Speech Attacked By Corporate Manipulators
America’s bid for global dominance
Thumpa And The Tyranny Of Human Rights
Dutch Intellectuals Apologise to Putin for Lies on MH17, Syria, Ukraine

Seventeen Techniques For Truth Suppression

As used by Our New Unhappy Lords

See how many you can spot in any newspaper or television news bulletin on any day:

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
Originally Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression

by David Martin

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.

Wax indignant. This is also known as the “how dare you?” gambit.

Characterize the charges as “rumours” or, better yet, “wild rumours.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumours.” (If they tend to believe the “rumours” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)

Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumours and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

Call the sceptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nut,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and of course, “rumour monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “sceptics” to shoot down.

Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

Dismiss the charges as “old news.”

Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candour and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven’t reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report the leak.

Require the sceptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

Scantly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.

Baldly and brazenly lie. A favourite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don’t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

via Stumble Upon