Google's possible influence on elections

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Apr 08, 2016 1:17 AM GMT



    I'm not sure if this would be a conspiracy theory, on purpose or an accident.

    Actually, I think their code is designed for them to maximize their profits, which is what corporations are supposed to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2016 1:40 AM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Epstein
    In 2012, Epstein publicly disputed with Google Search over a security warning placed on links to his website.[10] His website, which features mental health screening tests, was blocked for serving malware that could infect visitors to the site. Epstein emailed "Larry Page, Google's chief executive; David Drummond, Google’s legal counsel; Dr. Epstein's congressman; and journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wired, and Newsweek."[10] In it, Epstein threatened legal action if the warning concerning his website was not removed, and denied that any problems with his website existed.[10] Several weeks later, Epstein admitted his website had been hacked, but still blamed Google for tarnishing his name and not helping him find the infection
  • Relajado

    Posts: 409

    Apr 08, 2016 3:03 PM GMT
    Oop. Metabot conspiracy theories!
  • mitshoo

    Posts: 76

    Apr 08, 2016 4:05 PM GMT
    Several weeks later, Epstein admitted his website had been hacked, but still blamed Google for tarnishing his name and not helping him find the infection

    I can see how he might want to take revenge or something, but I don't think that invalidates what he says. I think that both of them missed something though - it's not just that we rank what's at the top of the search results as "the best" but that we are too lazy to go to page two. I think that's important to keep in mind. But I have always been weirded out, even when I was a kid, that Google used how many links something had as part of it's relevancy ranking. All that would do is make sure that people see what's already the most popular first, and it would be a feedback loop to maintain a page's popularity. I am sure their algorithms are far more sophisticated now, but the way they thought about relevance was always different than my idea. They don't show you what you might be looking for, they show you what they think you would feel good to see, which is why I use duckduckgo.com instead of Google now. To get out of the "filter bubble":

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2016 4:20 PM GMT
    I'd rather see if results are duplicated by someone without a reason to have a vendetta before taking such a study at its word.

    I'm definitely leery of tracking. I do delete cookies continuously to try and distance myself and I do not stick to a front page of results. Also I look at sources, favoring, for instance, a good public university over a privately owned forum or a newspaper staffed by university taught news gatherers over some random blogger.

    Part of my job when in publishing was researching information and gathering & reporting info so I'm somewhat familiar with the process.

    Thanx for the duck thang. I'll check that out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 08, 2016 4:43 PM GMT
    there is only so much relevant information out there per day
    just maybe some of the stuff is paid inserted into the web