• SourceFed - Did Google Manipulate Search for Hillary?
    39 replies, posted
[video]https://youtu.be/PFxFRqNmXKg[/video] Things like this have been discussed: [url]http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/google-searchs-invisible-influence-makes-hillary-clinton-shoo-2016-us-election-1516780[/url] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/19/donald-trump-facebook-election-manipulate-behavior[/url] House of Cards actually had the Republic nominee manipulating search results to get publicity too This only seems to be newish news, with rumors of things like this happening. It sounds very conspiracy theoristy, but it's not implausible. Obviously, there's nothing to suggest the Clintons are behind this, and if I was American I'd still vote Hillary over Trump but hey this sucks either way. (Am I putting this in the wrong place?)
Not surprising if true, Google has a vested interest to stopping trump.
People are really grasping at straws to make Hillary look bad now, aren't they?
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50485808]People are really grasping at straws to make Hillary look bad now, aren't they?[/QUOTE] This isn't about making Clinton look bad (thankfully she mostly does that on her own), this is about making Google look bad. It's pathetic if what was shown was done intentionally. I wish they could have gone more in-depth on the searches themselves. They should have reached out to people in other (particularly right-leaning) states to see if the search results for all three candidates seemed similar, along with if being logged in or out of a Google account (or simply searching via a proxy to eliminate indexing/profiling based off of IP addresses). Regardless, the biggest point is that this is not illegal, just unethical. I don't expect Google to come forward about it or anything similar, honestly.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50485808]People are really grasping at straws to make Hillary look bad now, aren't they?[/QUOTE] As if it takes much grasping to find something bad about Hillary Clinton.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50485808]People are really grasping at straws to make Hillary look bad now, aren't they?[/QUOTE] Matt goes out of his way to say that there's no information to suggest that Google were told by the Clintons to do this, he only suggests that Google did it. Besides, I think this is a shame because Trump is even worse but, people really don't need to grasp at straws to make Hillary look bad: she's an overtly manipulative flip flopping stone cold politician.
Google manipulating voting process is very worrying and kinda scary.
Ehh, I'm sceptical, but it does work out. The first result for "hillary clinton email" is "email address", while on bing it's "email investigation", and the searches in the video pan out.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50485808]People are really grasping at straws to make Hillary look bad now, aren't they?[/QUOTE] If this comes as a surprise to you then you must not follow presidential elections very closely.
Wow what a scientific and thorough method of testing for result manipulation! hey lets do some journalist science ourselves. [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2016-06-09_21-50-05.png[/t] [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2016-06-09_21-50-58.png[/t] [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2016-06-09_21-51-18.png[/t] [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2016-06-09_21-51-42.png[/t] There's no link between where it appears on the search bar and the trends. It's not based on one factor. This video proves nothing but the fact search algorithms are different. If the results were all the same there'd be little point in favouring any search engine over another.
Jesus the logo of [I]the Groundwork[/I] looks too much like the logo of an evil organization in a sci-fi movie
As Matt points out Google also filters by location, hence why I get this: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/Zd5aeEf.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/M6c3qFc.png[/IMG] And you and people in other places don't.
did a little work and use a thesaurus, it seemed to have blocked other words for crime. However, I did find it will auto complete with "hillary clinton anti" with obama ad and china.
Google results and suggestions are personalized, localized, and after 20 years in development hopefully a bit more complex then a popularity sort.
[QUOTE=Cold;50486648]Google results and suggestions are personalized, localized, and after 20 years in development hopefully a bit more complex then a popularity sort.[/QUOTE] They're localised but not personalised unless you count remembering previous searches as personalised.
crooked hillary has to autocomplete with berine. and you have to get to hilla for it to complete.
[QUOTE=Cold;50486648]Google results and suggestions are personalized, localized, and after 20 years in development hopefully a bit more complex then a popularity sort.[/QUOTE] They are significantly more complex than just a sort. Particularly, there's no sorting at all, this is what makes it so fast. The PageRank algorithm describes the very core of how Google's search works, but nowadays Google has fine tuned it to take a LOT more things into consideration. Particularly with the search suggestions, semantics parsing is important, Google offers similar results for similar but different phrases, and it also corrects misspellings which it cannot do if all it did was take frequency into consideration. You can test it right now, type "porn" letter by letter and see the way that it only really offers you anything actually related to porn after you type the full word, that's because it deliberately avoids giving you obscene results unless you're explicitly asking for them, despite "porn" being one of the most popular search terms of all time. Google also collects a scary amount of data to provide you with results that will match what you, the user, will consider relevant. They take a whole load of stuff into consideration, including previous search history and location. I have no idea to what degree is the system manually fine tuned but it can most definitely affect search results by just changing a couple of parameters somewhere. So Google could most certainly tamper with results if they'd want to, they just claim they don't, and nobody has any proof otherwise. Certainly, it'll require more than just that example to conclusively prove that Google is deliberately tampering with results to affect public perception. It's plausible, but it also could not be true.
If this is true then House of Cards is a documentary.
Big corporations should keep their hands off politics. This is the Facebook / Republicans thing all over again
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;50487288]If this is true then House of Cards is a documentary.[/QUOTE] A bunch of events in HoC have legit came true, and that reveal from an anonymous congressmen suggested congress is basically exactly how it was in S1 of HoC.
[QUOTE=Trumple;50486323]Wow what a scientific and thorough method of testing for result manipulation! hey lets do some journalist science ourselves. [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2016-06-09_21-50-05.png[/t] [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2016-06-09_21-50-58.png[/t] [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2016-06-09_21-51-18.png[/t] [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10518681/Screenshots/2016-06-09_21-51-42.png[/t] There's no link between where it appears on the search bar and the trends. It's not based on one factor. This video proves nothing but the fact search algorithms are different. If the results were all the same there'd be little point in favouring any search engine over another.[/QUOTE]You missed the point
Considering they are not logged into Google, in the same location and getting back different results that have usually shown to be the same across search engines, I'd say there is a bit of tampering going on. We have to remember that there's that google powered think tank behind her campaign, same as Obama used, it came up on SH a while back.
I recreated this little experiment and got the same results. I've even been doing searches on her indictment and they haven't changed mine to what should be the desired search. So search history has no effect. [img]http://i.imgur.com/dwNCy0q.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/QFp1luN.jpg[/img] Just seems like it's just about her indictment stuff though. Played around with it a little more. [img]http://i.imgur.com/T0b8Dz5.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/8Oc9Mdr.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/FMs1m9D.jpg[/img] This one's pretty golden though ha. [img]http://i.imgur.com/lFufrr7.jpg[/img]
I'm pretty sure this is actually a case of Google being engineered somehow to avoid suggesting potentially defamatory/negative things about people. Try applying the same kind of test to people other than Clinton, and see if you can get Google to suggest something controversial about them. Here are the first three examples I thought of, Google left/Bing right: [t]http://i.imgur.com/u8kQLn2.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/8jZ3Tgo.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/BAIucUr.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/F8G0Mfe.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/UNxDZt1.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/u2awToq.png[/t]
[QUOTE=smurfy;50488348]I'm pretty sure this is actually a case of Google being engineered somehow to avoid suggesting potentially defamatory/negative things about people. Try applying the same kind of test to people other than Clinton, and see if you can get Google to suggest something controversial about them.[/QUOTE] There's no way to have an algorithm that can determine which statements are defamatory or not, even with advanced machine learning. It has to be handmade fine tuning if that were the case.
[img]http://i.picpar.com/c4Sb.png[/img] just typing hillary got me this
[QUOTE=smurfy;50488348]I'm pretty sure this is actually a case of Google being engineered somehow to avoid suggesting potentially defamatory/negative things about people. Try applying the same kind of test to people other than Clinton, and see if you can get Google to suggest something controversial about them. Here are the first three examples I thought of, Google left/Bing right: [/quote] ok thats what i thought try doing a comparison of bing and google when searching mitt romney b and donald trump r
Even worse, search "ted cruz z" and you won't get any of the "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" shit. The closest I got in autocomplete was "ted cruz is the" which said "Ted cruz is the Zodiac Killer [I]shirt[/I]" as one of the results. Similarly with Bill Cosby, the closest you get to anything defamatory without flat out typing "bill cosby drug" it's "bill cosby drug [I]meme[/I]". It does seem to deliberately avoid results about people that may be unproven or controversial, the question is now how exactly is Google doing this. I can see why they're doing this, to avoid frivolous litigation, but I can't see how they can do this automatically.
here's the thing. I've looked at some interesting things about SEO (search engine optimization). SEO is incredibly unpredictable unless you know what's up with it. You can make a youtube video with a unique title or a website with a unique tag and then 20 minutes later find it on google with that exact same title on the front page. Anyone can manipulate Google's front page very easily. Google is not based off of popularity of asking questions, at least most of the time, it's based off of the metadata in your website and how common something is found by the bots. if you see some silly question on google like "can you get pregnant from kissing" its probably due to a bunch of 14 year olds from long ago asking questions on yahoo answers back in the day, not because a bunch of people googled it (but googling it probably did happen and might've helped a bit, but not by much.) but it should be noted that google does on occasion block search engine results, such as the banning of certain illegal/legally unstable websites, or stuff that carries a dmca claim, so it's not like they don't have the power. you should also note that bing and yahoo are mediocre search engines and they don't have the kind of optimization for auto-fill, nor the processing power that google has. google has invested literally billions of dollars into itself because google and it's ad revenue are one of the main driving forces behind the rest of the crazy shit they do, so comparing bing and yahoo to google's results are silly as most of bing and yahoo's results are the result of much simpler market research and basing it mostly off of user input vs. research. [B]ALSO[/B] you should note that looking up any other candidate with the same word "crime" introduced do not include any mention of crimes committed by the individual and seem to also have entries removed, suggesting that google is trying to keep research fair for all, so google doesn't get blamed for stipulating criminal intent in one individual. [t]http://i.imgur.com/hHTeHNi.png[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/lNL4FZl.png[/t] google does attempt to give you good, balanced information regarding each candidate on their search page and offers the ability to give feedback on them. [t]http://i.imgur.com/UQQ4A5l.png[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/CXS5e6P.png[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/Oq5BbQt.png[/t] as an aside, this video is incredibly weird for SF to do, since I remember them doing a lot of comedy videos and only talking in this serious tone when someone died or a tragedy occurred. seems a bit biased to be looking at this with that same scope. the other sources presented are also known for a poor track record. i find it silly to think google would specifically target someone for this kind of thing, especially when it'd have to go through MULTIPLE people of different races, ethnicity, genders, backgrounds, etc. and not have any sort of leak regarding this info. just cause a CEO is the big man on top doesn't mean his beliefs trump all, especially with a company that has always strives for (and wouldn't survive without) the diversity it carries. this is all highly speculative, one-sided, and beyond that is incredibly damaging to google with no real proof of the crime. absolutely terrible reporting, and comes so left-field from a company like SourceFed, which for godsakes STRIVES off of SEO and google (see: clickbait.) someone along the line had to have known this before it went to 'print' if they go to any of YouTube's conferences regarding getting your info out there. guh. [editline]guhguh[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Bang;50488497]It does seem to deliberately avoid results about people that may be unproven or controversial, the question is now how exactly is Google doing this. I can see why they're doing this, to avoid frivolous litigation, but I can't see how they can do this automatically.[/QUOTE] it's not automatic. it's all manicured, similar to how wikipedia locks pages after something controversial happened. google has a big enough team to keep up with the trends and know when to block something out. they could also use keywords. either way the more i look into it the more i see that google actively tries to block out the word "crime" for anyone really. either way you're not stopped from looking up if someone's committed a crime, just if it shows up in the autocomplete section.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;50487288]If this is true then House of Cards is a documentary.[/QUOTE] Bill Clinton did say that 99% of House of Cards is true... so.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.