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

[Spendulus]

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'....

These companies reside in far left areas and employ there. Resulting in perhaps 100,000 people of a homogeneous far left mentality employed in filtering content for an America that is very, very diverse and which does NOT want their snowflake politics attitude or decision making.

Effectively these companies were and are pushing a far left political agenda. If I was Google I'd relocate some of the jobs to Kansas and Kentucky, before I was forced to.

Medium term I believe Google is replaceable by peer to peer search engine algorithms.

Meantime they can't be allowed to tilt elections in the USA.

[1714942947]

1714942947

[suchmoon]

Effectively these companies were and are pushing a far left political agenda. If I was Google I'd relocate some of the jobs to Kansas and Kentucky, before I was forced to.

Even in Kansas or Kentucky they would still be employing educated people in urban areas, which would likely sway left. Google already has offices in TX, GA, NC, PA - states that Trump won.

Meantime they can't be allowed to tilt elections in the USA.

Citizens United would probably disagree.

[xtraelv]

I think it is just "alternative facts".

It is well known that google search results depend on your previous search results.

Different people can search google and get a different set of results.



https://microarts.com/insights/why-googles-search-results-vary-from-person-to-person/

[Spendulus]

I think it is just "alternative facts".

It is well known that google search results depend on your previous search results.

Different people can search google and get a different set of results.



https://microarts.com/insights/why-googles-search-results-vary-from-person-to-person/

People that have studied this use scientific methods.

Example, for each search, use a clean computer cleared of cookies and a VPN.

[xtraelv]

I think it is just "alternative facts".

It is well known that google search results depend on your previous search results.

Different people can search google and get a different set of results.



https://microarts.com/insights/why-googles-search-results-vary-from-person-to-person/

People that have studied this use scientific methods.

Example, for each search, use a clean computer cleared of cookies and a VPN.

I realize that but even using a VPN could be affecting the results.

1) A lot of VPN providers are known.

2) VPN IPs are often shared and may skew the results.

https://privacy.google.com/your-data.html
What data is collected:

Things you search for
Websites you visit
Videos you watch
Ads you click on or tap
Your location
Device information
IP address and cookie data

(Your location is also revealed through your system time, OS language and OS version.)

Based on your google account:
Name
Email address and password
Birthday
Gender
Phone number
Country

Device information
Potentially they can collect:
User-Agent, Architecture, OS Language, System Time, Screen Resolution.
https://browserleaks.com/

What about analytics on the pages they visit ? A lot of websites use Javascript to tract for google analytics. This information is likely to be fed back to your google user profiles. https://developers.google.com/analytics/resources/concepts/gaConceptsTrackingOverview

Without knowing their exact methodology and having other researchers check it - I would be skeptical to accept it on face value.

The reason so many people use google is because it gives them the information that they want to see. This is both handy and dangerous.

The reason people use bing is because it is bundled as malware with some software distributions.

The other mentioned search engines are just not in the same league as google. I sometimes check them "just in case" they have indexed something not available on google.

Even using a clean computer can potentially skew the data - because how many people would use a clean computer to search stuff ?

https://privacy.net/analyzer/

Try the Canvas Fingerprinting


EDIT:

I did a totally unscientific test. Didn't clear cookies. (I dislike Trump).

I searched:

Trump
Obama
and Hillary Clinton

The I let auto predict provide the suggestions.

Starting with a to z

Obama a, Obama b, Obama c...

The only abusive suggestion was Obama j = Obama Jackass

The other suggestions were all relevant.

However I did find this:


https://www.etsy.com/shop/spacedoutdesigns?ref=l2-shop-header-avatar

Then I searched:
Obama is a
Trump is a
Clinton is a







The results contradict the covfefe.

[Spendulus]

.....

Without knowing their exact methodology and having other researchers check it - I would be skeptical to accept it on face value.
....

That's pretty funny.

I start out and say "Don't Trust Google" and you are saying "Don't trust people who tell you ... you shouldn't trust google..."

I just tried the auto complete test again.

Hillary cri = NOT ONE of ten about crimes
Trump cri = SIX of ten about crime

Really that's pretty simple, isn't it?

Doing exactly the same thing with Duck-Duck-go, both Trump and Hillary show four of eight responses with the phrase "crime."

[xtraelv]

.....

Without knowing their exact methodology and having other researchers check it - I would be skeptical to accept it on face value.
....

That's pretty funny.

I start out and say "Don't Trust Google" and you are saying "Don't trust people who tell you ... you shouldn't trust google..."

I just tried the auto complete test again.

Hillary cri = NOT ONE of ten about crimes
Trump cri = SIX of ten about crime

Really that's pretty simple, isn't it?

Doing exactly the same thing with Duck-Duck-go, both Trump and Hillary show four of eight responses with the phrase "crime."

Google and facebook are data sluts. They suck up all our personal information. So - I don't trust them.

I also don't trust any research that is being touted by Trump. He is the type of person who will make up stuff and misuse info for his own agenda and has been caught doing so numerous times.

Research is only reliable if people have been able to check it over. Anyone can finance a study to say anything.
http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/

I'm not sure what the obsession is with Clinton but it is no longer a campaign trail. Trump is the serving President . Clinton is not even a federal employee.





No exciting results here.

[suchmoon]

http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/

Thank you. Reading the comments under that story makes me want to apologize to everyone I ever called an idiot on Bitcointalk.

[Spendulus]

...
Google and facebook are data sluts. They suck up all our personal information. So - I don't trust them.

I also don't trust any research that is being touted by Trump. ....

Sounds like we're in agreement on the basics.

I suspect if I suggested extending that list of persons not to be trusted to include other politicians  of your preference we'd still be in agreement.

Why exactly did you hold the view there was nothing interesting about the Google search that showed 0 hits for "crime" on Hillary, but numerous for Trump?

[xtraelv]

...
Google and facebook are data sluts. They suck up all our personal information. So - I don't trust them.

I also don't trust any research that is being touted by Trump. ....

Sounds like we're in agreement on the basics.

I suspect if I suggested extending that list of persons not to be trusted to include other politicians  of your preference we'd still be in agreement.

Why exactly did you hold the view there was nothing interesting about the Google search that showed 0 hits for "crime" on Hillary, but numerous for Trump?

Because Trump is a serving president embroiled in controversy. People close to him  George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates all have been charged / convicted of crimes. Some of those crimes benefited Trump.

Hillary Clinton is no longer in a position of authority. A "has been". Just like people don't write about George W Bush anymore.

The only people that would be interested in Hillary are the people that want to deflect attention from Trump. I doubt that Democrats are googling Hillary. Really - Hillary's computer is old news -  it got boring during the election already. Jared has done almost the same thing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-emails-security-clearances-revoked-democrats-latest-a7986541.html

I've never been to the USA so a lot of American political antics don't affect me but I know he will leave a big mess behind. He breaks relationships with other nations and then expects credit for partly patching it up again.

He might have drained the swamp - but have you ever seen the creatures a freshly drained swamp attracts ?

The attack on the media and now on google I see as an assault onto journalistic speech. That is a worry in any country.

I agree that politicians generally are not to be trusted. It is the only occupation where you can advertise lies and not get shut down by the authorities for false advertising.

[Spendulus]

...
Google and facebook are data sluts. They suck up all our personal information. So - I don't trust them.

I also don't trust any research that is being touted by Trump. ....

Sounds like we're in agreement on the basics.

I suspect if I suggested extending that list of persons not to be trusted to include other politicians  of your preference we'd still be in agreement.

Why exactly did you hold the view there was nothing interesting about the Google search that showed 0 hits for "crime" on Hillary, but numerous for Trump?

Because Trump is a serving president embroiled in controversy. People close to him  George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates all have been charged / convicted of crimes. Some of those crimes benefited Trump.

Hillary Clinton is no longer in a position of authority. A "has been". Just like people don't write about George W Bush anymore.

The only people that would be interested in Hillary are the people that want to deflect attention from Trump. I doubt that Democrats are googling Hillary. Really - Hillary's computer is old news -  it got boring during the election already. Jared has done almost the same thing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-emails-security-clearances-revoked-democrats-latest-a7986541.html

I've never been to the USA so a lot of American political antics don't affect me but I know he will leave a big mess behind. He breaks relationships with other nations and then expects credit for partly patching it up again.

He might have drained the swamp - but have you ever seen the creatures a freshly drained swamp attracts ?

The attack on the media and now on google I see as an assault onto journalistic speech. That is a worry in any country.

I agree that politicians generally are not to be trusted. It is the only occupation where you can advertise lies and not get shut down by the authorities for false advertising.

Here is the problem. When experiments and research in various fields such as psychology and medicine are done, blind and double-blind experimental protocols are used. This means for the blind protocol, that the test operators in contact with the subjects do not know what the purpose is. For the double blind those who supervise the test operators do not know.

These are used because the pervasive effects of bias make accurate findings impossible without the strictest of these protocols.

Now I could argue that your analysis is biased and imperfect. But that's not the point. The point is that the protocols used by the likes of Google and Facebook are biased and imperfect. In other words, you would defend with bias, biased protocols that are in turn the natural output product of biased individuals.

Yet these are the very projects which blind and double blind experimentation is well understood to handle.

There can be no in between. There is only a scientific approach or a biased approach.

There is no defense that can be made by Google without providing facts and algorithms, and that they (apparently) will not do.

We know from the history of cryptography that the algorithms held secret are the easiest to break, or to find flaws in. Those which are published and critiqued repeatedly, right out in the open, are the strongest security methods by far.

I'm inclined to the opinion that the algorithms of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter are crude and amateurish.

[suchmoon]

I'm inclined to the opinion that the algorithms of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter are crude and amateurish.

Probably not crude / amateurish but quite shitty in many other ways. But what do you suggest - force them to open source it, or force some government regulation of "fairness"? These are private companies. Facebook and Twitter are not really essential to anyone so who cares. Google has a near-monopoly position in search and a duopoly in smartphones so there is quite a bit of government pressure on them already, particularly in Europe.

[Spendulus]

I'm inclined to the opinion that the algorithms of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter are crude and amateurish.

Probably not crude / amateurish but quite shitty in many other ways. But what do you suggest - force them to open source it, or force some government regulation of "fairness"? These are private companies. Facebook and Twitter are not really essential to anyone so who cares. Google has a near-monopoly position in search and a duopoly in smartphones so there is quite a bit of government pressure on them already, particularly in Europe.

These are private companies which are crossing the line into the arena of public utilities, and regulation is probable...in those countries such as the USA where it has not already occurred. It already exists in many places.

What do I suggest? Open source is the only solution to this technical problem. Near monopolies come and go in the blink of an eye in the software world.

What if it was your bitcoin wallet, and some guys with closed source were making assertions about how great it was?

[suchmoon]

These are private companies which are crossing the line into the arena of public utilities, and regulation is probable...in those countries such as the USA where it has not already occurred. It already exists in many places.

What do I suggest? Open source is the only solution to this technical problem. Near monopolies come and go in the blink of an eye in the software world.

What if it was your bitcoin wallet, and some guys with closed source were making assertions about how great it was?

I mean how do you suggest to actually make it happen. An open source alternative may be better in some ways but that's not a solution, more like a wish. How do we create it and entice people to use it? Government regulation can slap a fine on Google, or ban it, or criminalize its use. Government regulation isn't gonna give you an alternative, let alone a fair one.

Look at Microsoft's monopoly woes back in the 90s and government's actions against it. We didn't get open source Windows out of it. Owing to market forces we got some competition decades later, ironically in the form of a somewhat open source OS from Google, but here we are again.

[Spendulus]

These are private companies which are crossing the line into the arena of public utilities, and regulation is probable...in those countries such as the USA where it has not already occurred. It already exists in many places.

What do I suggest? Open source is the only solution to this technical problem. Near monopolies come and go in the blink of an eye in the software world.

What if it was your bitcoin wallet, and some guys with closed source were making assertions about how great it was?

I mean how do you suggest to actually make it happen. An open source alternative may be better in some ways but that's not a solution, more like a wish. How do we create it and entice people to use it? Government regulation can slap a fine on Google, or ban it, or criminalize its use. Government regulation isn't gonna give you an alternative, let alone a fair one.

Look at Microsoft's monopoly woes back in the 90s and government's actions against it. We didn't get open source Windows out of it. Owing to market forces we got some competition decades later, ironically in the form of a somewhat open source OS from Google, but here we are again.

First would be attempting to correctly state the problem and the solutions as we have been doing here. Don't underestimate the importance of this simple requirement. Not saying that this is all 100% perfect construction of the issue...

[tvbcof]

Look at Microsoft's monopoly woes back in the 90s and government's actions against it. We didn't get open source Windows out of it. Owing to market forces we got some competition decades later, ironically in the form of a somewhat open source OS from Google, but here we are again.

A 'somewhat' open source solution doesn't cut it from a security perspective.   All that is good for is to get free labor from the naive pool of the high-IQ population who doesn't receive a pay stub from Big Evil.  Here in corp/gov merged 2018, the primary usefulness of such a solution would be to see what is NOT open-sourced to help narrow down where the back-doors are.

[xtraelv]

The sad part is that they are tightening copyright and patents rather than relaxing them.

If there were no patents or copyright then they would be forced to share or develop technology in secret.

Most patents never make it to the market or are used badly. https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17222380/apple-virtnetx-patent-troll-litigation-500-million-imessage-facetime-case

If you ban patents and limit and discourage copyright then the business models would change to open source.

[First77]

Google search showed Indian Prime minister "Narendra Modi" among top 10 criminals in the world. use google.com. How reliable are the tech giants ?

[adamantasaurus]

This is how trump works:

Anything negative about him in the media= fake news/rigged

Anything positive about him= I am smart and you're all dumb.

The audacity of this president I swear to god! haha how can someone that arrogant and just a plain baffoon be allowed to run a country we need a stricter interview process for the president!

[philipma1957]

That's disappointing. I was quite sure that Trump uses Bing.

I make good money searching with bing.

Why would anyone want to use google?

I think Trump uses yahoo as his search engine.