Tweet
Originally posted by -Jrabbit
View Post
-
Hillary pushing RCT x100I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh -
She paid for the opposition research. They colluded with the FBI even after Mueller was assigned. I mean she isn't really stupid. But people who repost her crap sure are.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
If someone had given Russia credit for MILLIONS of Trump votes, that would be a bit of a stretch.Comment
-
1) You have no idea what you are talking about.
2) Google has more power than Russia when it comes to that.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Tweet Storm
Tweet storm starting now - getting interrupted from time to time by calls from reporters... I've been caught in the middle of an exchange of tweets between 2 media titans,
@HillaryClinton
&
@realDonaldTrump
. #Trump's tweet was slightly wrong. #Hillary's tweet was shameful.Dr. Robert Epstein@DrREpstein5,049 people are talking about this#3
#Trump tweet, point #1: I've never said that #Google deliberately "manipulated" the 2016 election, but I measured substantial pro-#Hillary bias in #Google's search results by preserving & analyzing 13,207 election-related searches & the 98,044 web pages linked to those searches.
8,929
3:14 PM - Aug 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
#Trump tweet, point #2: The level of pro-#Hillary bias I found in #Google's search results - absent on #Bing & #Yahoo - was enough to convince between 2.6 & 10.4 million undecided voters to vote for Hillary. .@realDonaldTrump said 16 million; that's wrong.
Trump tweet, point #3: It doesn't matter whether the bias in #Google search results was deliberate or not. Once it appeared - which it did at least 6 months before the election - it began shifting opinions & votes without people's knowledge & without leaving a paper trail.
Now, switching to .@HillaryClinton: This is going to hurt me to write, because I & my whole extended family have been strong supporters of the Clintons for decades. I have a framed, signed letter from #Bill on the wall near my desk. But #Hillary should be ashamed of herself.
#Hillary has long depended on #Google for both money & votes. Her largest donor in 2016 was Alphabet/Google. Her Chief Technology Officer during the campaign was Stephanie Hannon, a former Google exec. And then there's #EricSchmidt, longtime head of Google - the guy in the pic:
A leaked email showed that in 2014 #Google's #EricSchmidt offered to run #Hillary's tech campaign (see pic). In 2015, Schmidt in fact funded The Groundwork, a highly secretive tech company, the sole purpose of which was to put Clinton into office. https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/ …
I didn't include all 18
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Did he post anything about how millions of Democrats were coerced into voting for the Democratic candidate by Google?Comment
-
Bias isn't coercion. He said that they voted for Hillary because they used Google instead of a different search engine. People are lazy and stupid. They trust Google to be non-political. So they don't think they are being led to vote one way or the other. There is psychology involved that I'm unaware of. I'm too tired right now to go deep into it.Originally posted by Aeson View PostI drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
I’m talking about his study’s methodology. Did he defend that?
No one is denying that bias in information can sway votes. But claiming millions voted in a way they wouldn’t otherwise requires actual evidence.Comment
-
Bias that is causing people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t is definitely coercion.Originally posted by Kidicious View PostComment
-
Is there a control? Did he check for pro-Trump bias or pro-Gary Johnson bias?Comment
-
We reached out to Epstein to ask if he took issue with how Trump characterized his findings.
"I sure do," said Epstein, who supported Clinton in 2016. "I have never said that Google deliberately manipulated the 2016 election."
When we asked what formula and assumptions Epstein used to reach his bottom-line conclusion, we did not hear back. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Experts cited several major flaws in Epstein’s paper.
First, here’s the study’s basic setup: In the run-up to the 2016 election, researchers recruited 95 people, 21 of whom identified as "undecided."
Over a 25-day period — from Oct. 15 through Election Day, Nov. 8 — researchers analyzed between 50 and 483 of these subjects' daily web searches.
Those search results were then farmed out to a crowdsourcing website, where raters voted on whether they found search results biased or not.
Their key finding: that "election-related search terms were, on average, biased in Mrs. Clinton’s favor."
Experts we spoke to cited a slew of problems with this methodology.
One common complaint was a lack of definitions.
"They can't even define what biased search results are — they simply piped them off to a crowd-sourcing site and asked random people, ‘Is this search results page biased or not?’ " said Ryan Singel, a media and strategy fellow at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. "What does that even mean?"
The researchers also discarded search results from users who operated Gmail accounts, after finding these users’ searches yielded less biased results. To the researchers, this raised concerns that "perhaps Google identified our confidants through its gmail system and targeted them to receive unbiased results."
But others doubted that explanation.
"They eliminated anyone using a Gmail address because their search results weren't considered ‘biased,’ speculating that Google was intentionally poisoning their research," Singel said. "That's both equally laughable and sad."
Setting aside the methodological flaws, others took exception to the researchers assumption about how well an experiment of this kind would translate to the voting booth. To some, the holes in the definitions and unexplained formulas used to extrapolate created more questions than answers.
We reached out to Nicholas Diakopoulos, a professor in communication studies and computer science at Northwestern University, to ask how researchers could get from 25 days’ worth of search results from 95 subjects to millions of manipulated votes.
"There's not enough information in the whitepaper about how the estimate was done," Diakopoulos said.
He said the researchers likely developed a mathematical formula that seeks to translate examples of bias they collected into estimates of voter impact.
"But again there is not enough information in the whitepaper to say definitively how their ‘computational model’ works," he said, "and whether it is a valid estimate based on the assumptions built into the model."
Google refuted Trump’s statement, noting it was an old claim.
"This researcher's inaccurate claim has been debunked since it was made in 2016," a Google spokesman said in a statement. "As we stated then, we have never re-ranked or altered search results to manipulate political sentiment."
Kidicious is a memeComment
-
If we can't trust a bunch of self selected people (and bots) on the internet, who can we trust?Comment
-
Looks like google is everyone's friend, except Trump's.BlahComment
-
giblets wants to know if Google is biased towards Trump.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
If only they refuted the fact that a Harvard researcher conducted a study and found that Google bias got millions of votes for Hillary.Originally posted by giblets View PostI drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
Comment