U.S President Trump: Google ‘rigged’ search results, ‘illegal’ censorship.

[zcooipo]

I think that most of the websites now have such problems, "manipulating search results," but they need evidence to sanction them. Where is the evidence?

[1714939652]

1714939652

[Spendulus]

Try it yourself.

Type into Google "Hillary Clinton cri" and check the results of the autocomplete.

Then try "Trump cri".

Then try Yahoo and Bing. The bias is right there.  Right out in the open.

Or perhaps autocomplete reflects what people are searching for most often. But that wouldn't make a good conspiracy theory.

BTW I got "Hillary Clinton cries" and "Trump Crimea" so not sure what your point really is.

"Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term.

NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries."

For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes."

Anybody that does not believe that Google, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter do not actively censor, shadow ban, preferentially auto complete, and use all other tactics in their book to promote their own ideology is foolish. But try it out yourself, don't take anyone's word for it.

And remember, it's not who they discriminate against today. It's the fact that tomorrow, it could be you.

[suchmoon]

"Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term.

NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries."

Do you have data to support that? I wouldn't search for either of those but I'm not going to say NEVER. Someone could have searched for Hillary crying about losing the election. And perhaps "crimes" isn't such a hot topic outside of your bubble, or maybe people search for more specific terms. You can't seriously use autocomplete as some sort of proof of bias. Just ask Santorum.

For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes."

I didn't look much further down the list but I think I had "Trump crime" at #3 or 4. Again, that doesn't prove anything. Even Fox News can have "Trump" and "crime" in a header and it could be about Trump being tough on crime.

[First77]

Looks like Google CEO will be fired from the job  

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

Try it yourself.

Type into Google "Hillary Clinton cri" and check the results of the autocomplete.

Then try "Trump cri".

Then try Yahoo and Bing. The bias is right there.  Right out in the open.

Or perhaps autocomplete reflects what people are searching for most often. But that wouldn't make a good conspiracy theory.

BTW I got "Hillary Clinton cries" and "Trump Crimea" so not sure what your point really is.

"Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term.

NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries."

For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes."

Anybody that does not believe that Google, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter do not actively censor, shadow ban, preferentially auto complete, and use all other tactics in their book to promote their own ideology is foolish. But try it out yourself, don't take anyone's word for it.

And remember, it's not who they discriminate against today. It's the fact that tomorrow, it could be you.

or your daughter when she escape alive a pedo island and try to speak out about those who raped her... it's war, don't forget it. and in all wars there are the propagandists of the other side trying to demoralize and justify their actions... prime targets, there are a few here... pity, mery or tolerance is for the weak, their deaths is the only appropriate answer...

nice video about the union speech made by the wh : https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034907478566359041/video/1  (from here https://www.infowars.com/trump-provides-example-of-google-bias-after-being-called-liar/ )

and what about the splinter cell at the cia setup by obama? there, there is no other choice but to death squad them on the american soil, does haspel has what it takes to clean the mess? it should already be done by now... traitors must die.

[Spendulus]

"Hillary Clinton crimes" would be the most often searched for term.

NOT, NEVER "Hillary Clinton cries."

Do you have data to support that? I wouldn't search for either of those but I'm not going to say NEVER. Someone could have searched for Hillary crying about losing the election. And perhaps "crimes" isn't such a hot topic outside of your bubble, or maybe people search for more specific terms. You can't seriously use autocomplete as some sort of proof of bias. Just ask Santorum.

For Trump in my case six of the ten resulting suggestions from Google include the word "crimes."

I didn't look much further down the list but I think I had "Trump crime" at #3 or 4. Again, that doesn't prove anything. Even Fox News can have "Trump" and "crime" in a header and it could be about Trump being tough on crime.

Yes, bias in Google auto-complete has been proven by researchers.

Check this article as one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html

[KingScorpio]

trump = us president that believes in kapitalism but effectivly does communism.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

trump = us president that believes in kapitalism but effectivly does communism.

trump = defend free speech and try to avoid the necessary killing
obama = create splinter cia cell to destroy and erase all opposition to his ambitions... by destroying the first amendement (to get the second, 3,4,5,etc) until they get run pedo mcmansion us wide with epstein and weinstein as ceos.

they must hate trump because the only way to buy him is to offer him AGA, aka, American Great Again, but those traitors want exactly the opposite.

they hate him sooooo much... they have nothing to bribe him, and threats are quite difficult to foment against a potus... but since there is a splinter cell at the cia, extreme caution and annihilation death squad should be roving above the traitors mansion and cleaning the kill list fast... there is not much time (or maybe I am just to cautionnary).

ps it's a full on war.

[Spendulus]

....
Trump seems to think it's Google doing it themselves but I don't think that's the case. I'm not taking any political sides but we know that there's a LOT of negative articles about Trump so of course Google's algorithms are gonna put those higher than any of the good articles written about him. That's just how it works.

There's apparently a rule at Google that they try to not show negative results about a person when that is a search for the person by name.

It's pretty much certain they followed this rule / are following this rule with Hillary but not with Trump.

It's not "just how it works." It's intentional manipulation by the Google staff. It may not be company policy, entirely possible it's just the sort of people they get from the local community.

[GreenBits]

....
Trump seems to think it's Google doing it themselves but I don't think that's the case. I'm not taking any political sides but we know that there's a LOT of negative articles about Trump so of course Google's algorithms are gonna put those higher than any of the good articles written about him. That's just how it works.

There's apparently a rule at Google that they try to not show negative results about a person when that is a search for the person by name.

It's pretty much certain they followed this rule / are following this rule with Hillary but not with Trump.

It's not "just how it works." It's intentional manipulation by the Google staff. It may not be company policy, entirely possible it's just the sort of people they get from the local community.

Or, is there even the remote possibility that the overwhelming majority of copy generated about President Trump is simply negative? You can't draw blood from a stone. The media does not like the POTUS; and 'liberal' (read - anti Trump) media is much more ubiquitous than the quasi conservative echo chambers. So, when you roll the Google dice re:Trump, you are most likely to hit shit, as this is the majority of the content available.

I say quasi conservative cuz this thing that Trump and his followers are doing is SO far from conservatism. I miss traditional, small gov, fiscally responsible conservatism. It's gone the way of the dodo as of late.

Props to the moderator here. I remember this sub being the Wild West  Missed all you guys!

[suchmoon]

Yes, bias in Google auto-complete has been proven by researchers.

Check this article as one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html

The only somewhat credible example in that article was "Donald Trump is dead" although it's not exactly negative in the same sense as "crime" or "lie" or "putin's puppet" - which is a real autocomplete from Bing BTW. I tried "Donald Trump is dead" and I got a snopes fact-check (spoiler alert: Trump is not really dead).

The rest of it was comparing Google to Bing/Yahoo even though Google clearly stated that they filter off negative autocompletes so of course Bing/Yahoo will show more garbage.

But thanks for some good laughs. I recommend trying Bing with:

chuck schumer is
paul ryan is
betsy devos is
nancy pelosi is

[Spendulus]

Yes, bias in Google auto-complete has been proven by researchers.

Check this article as one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html

The only somewhat credible example in that article was "Donald Trump is dead" although it's not exactly negative in the same sense as "crime" or "lie" or "putin's puppet" - which is a real autocomplete from Bing BTW. I tried "Donald Trump is dead" and I got a snopes fact-check (spoiler alert: Trump is not really dead).

The rest of it was comparing Google to Bing/Yahoo even though Google clearly stated that they filter off negative autocompletes so of course Bing/Yahoo will show more garbage.

But thanks for some good laughs. I recommend trying Bing with:

chuck schumer is
paul ryan is
betsy devos is
nancy pelosi is

There are many other examples besides Epstein's work, but may I suggest a reasonable approach to this whole issue?

It would be to not believe a single word Google, Youtube, Facebook or Twitter says about their "Unbias," and simply assume they are totally evil in their intentions, until and if proven otherwise by examination of the algorithms.

This is what we do with crypto.

You can't go wrong with this approach.

[suchmoon]

There are many other examples besides Epstein's work, but may I suggest a reasonable approach to this whole issue?

It would be to not believe a single word Google, Youtube, Facebook or Twitter says about their "Unbias," and simply assume they are totally evil in their intentions, until and if proven otherwise by examination of the algorithms.

This is what we do with crypto.

You can't go wrong with this approach.

Sounds like a plan. I may disagree on how this "evil" manifests itself but I can agree on not trusting giant corporations.

[Spendulus]

There are many other examples besides Epstein's work, but may I suggest a reasonable approach to this whole issue?

It would be to not believe a single word Google, Youtube, Facebook or Twitter says about their "Unbias," and simply assume they are totally evil in their intentions, until and if proven otherwise by examination of the algorithms.

This is what we do with crypto.

You can't go wrong with this approach.

Sounds like a plan. I may disagree on how this "evil" manifests itself but I can agree on not trusting giant corporations.

Understood. But verifying and confirming the operation of an algorithm knows no political approach.

And we KNOW Google kowtows to all sorts of political influences. Such as their operation in China....

Related. I read when looking into this subject, that if you type into Google "I want to kill myself," that one of the standard responses is a line to a suicide hotline. That's likely an unqualified social good. I'm sure there are other cases like that....

[tvbcof]

...
And we KNOW Google kowtows to all sorts of political influences. Such as their operation in China....
...

Actually Google (and Google nearly alone) 'took a stand' against China and their social engineering prerogatives back about 8 years ago IIRC.  They pitched a bitch when they discovered a certain form of hacking and bailed out of the country closing some offices in the process.  That's the way I remember it, and I don't remember it being secret info.  None of the other biggies (Facefuck, Microsuck, etc) had the guts to do this.

As the years drift by I'm more and more inclined to see Google as straight-up evil and question the 'valiant' things they do/did.  What was the effect of Google bailing?  In fact domestic providers picked up the slack and took social engineering to a new level with 'social credit scores' and what-not.

At this point in time I don't see any reason to doubt that Google would be ga-ga about the idea of social credit scores and chomping at the bit to deploy a solution which involved them on the American people.  Could it be the case that even way back in 2010 Google and China agreed to 'fight' in order to use the Chinese society as a development platform?  Google would have faced a multitude of problems doing so to the American people due to differences in our respective governments and due to the American people having a different sense of right and wrong.  Was Google management as slimy and anti-American 8 years ago as they have been over the last few years?  I personally do not know, but it's a valid question.

[First77]

U.S President is the leader of the free world.

[Spendulus]

...
And we KNOW Google kowtows to all sorts of political influences. Such as their operation in China....
...

Actually Google (and Google nearly alone) 'took a stand' against China and their social engineering prerogatives back about 8 years ago IIRC.  They pitched a bitch when they discovered a certain form of hacking and bailed out of the country closing some offices in the process.  That's the way I remember it, and I don't remember it being secret info.  None of the other biggies (Facefuck, Microsuck, etc) had the guts to do this.

As the years drift by I'm more and more inclined to see Google as straight-up evil and question the 'valiant' things they do/did.  What was the effect of Google bailing?  In fact domestic providers picked up the slack and took social engineering to a new level with 'social credit scores' and what-not.

At this point in time I don't see any reason to doubt that Google would be ga-ga about the idea of social credit scores and chomping at the bit to deploy a solution which involved them on the American people.  Could it be the case that even way back in 2010 Google and China agreed to 'fight' in order to use the Chinese society as a development platform?  Google would have faced a multitude of problems doing so to the American people due to differences in our respective governments and due to the American people having a different sense of right and wrong.  Was Google management as slimy and anti-American 8 years ago as they have been over the last few years?  I personally do not know, but it's a valid question.

Maybe it took them a couple of years to get fully corrupt.

But they are now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/08/01/google-accused-chilling-complicity-china-plans-launch-censored/

[popcorn1]

Google is in bed with the bad government to control your lives        all to suck your monies out your pockets to feed the Clintons and the likes plus themselves ..
If we google keep the political bums happy we will pay less tax get the government contracts this is how these greedy humans thinks..

To MR TRUMPS  set your own political site up were people can speak BUT put an 18 years old warning on it    then we are all adults and can say what we likes..
EVEN bitcointalk  is becoming a government lick ass ..

[Spendulus]

...
And we KNOW Google kowtows to all sorts of political influences. Such as their operation in China....
...

.....None of the other biggies (Facefuck, Microsuck....

The sooner these evils are all replaced with peer to peer blockchain derivatives the better off we will all be.

[squatz1]

Even with Trump coming out and saying stuff like this, I don't think there is going to be any regulation when it comes to the search engines -- I think they have the money to lobby the government (at least Congress) into looking the other way while they push forward with their crazy monopoly over the internet.

I know a good amount of people are going to use the 'it's a private company, they can do WHATEVER they want'

Well look at these links and fines and see if that's really acceptable

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-eu-fine-antitrust

https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-eu-antitrust-violations-over-shopping-searches/

https://www.politico.eu/pro/russian-antitrust-regulator-rules-against-google-report/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/aug/13/oracle-sues-google-over-android-os and https://www.politico.eu/article/politico-pros-morning-tech-tsm-deal-uber-arrests-anti-google-campaign-software-bundling/

While I'm not usually the one calling for regulation, I do think we're reaching monopoly scale here with Google.....