Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/22/2019 9:03:19 AM (updated 8/22/2019 10:12:42 AM)

about real search engine manipulation: How To Game Google To Make Negative Results Disappear

Note that the manipulation is not being done by the search engines; it is instead done by "reputation management" and "search engine optimization (SEO)" firms. This has been around for a few years now, and it is quite effective. So much so that it forms a major part of the Russian misinformation campaigns intended to alter the outcomes of our elections.

Like all tools used by criminals, it has some legitimate purposes. How to stop it - if it can be stopped - is a challenging question.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/22/2019 10:22:54 AM (updated 8/22/2019 10:24:46 AM)

So you posted one article from Buzzfeed - is that like a white paper or a major peer reviewed article?  I am guessing white paper at best, as with most of the leftist MSM probably closer to another paper that is used to wipe with.

You know how we can have lots of election integrity?  Paper ballots, and voter ID.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/22/2019 10:43:11 AM

Not quite the same as the Google election day "Go Vote" message.  Amazing that Google had the abiltiy to filter that message to select areas/neighborhoods, ethnic groups, wage earners, union territories etc.  That is the crux of the matter as I see it.

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/22/2019 1:02:37 PM

"Not quite the same as the Google election day "Go Vote" message.  Amazing that Google had the abiltiy to filter that message to select areas/neighborhoods, ethnic groups, wage earners, union territories etc."

Lemme get this straight: you're alleging that Google attempted to alter the results of elections by selectively encouraging turnout in areas most likely to vote the way they wanted and not encouraging turnout in areas likely to vote the other way? IOW, exactly what the Republican party has been doing for years? Say it ain't so.

Why not let us know exactly where you came by that piece of information? Perhaps Epoch Times?

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/22/2019 5:45:05 PM

https://is.gd/p0li8V

Now Doe, I don't really have the time to dissect this study with you, but let me step out on a ledge and say that it does exhibit scientific validity.  This is the entire basis of his testimony.  Not the white paper, not blogs, not periodical publications.  The study was replicated by a Max Planck institute, per his sworn testimony.  If you would rather believe that Russians had more of a chance to affect votes via social media platforms than Google, whose employees donated to HRC to the tune of 96 or so % and have algorithms that track your every search, than continue to believe in the hoax.  

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	CRD vs DOO-DOO-IDIOT
Date:	8/22/2019 6:19:08 PM

CRD, it's obvious that doo-doo has no clue what he's talking about; he's just advocating and posting what he thinks a good liberal idiot should do.  Google did what Google is designed to do.....gather info from those of us who use Google, and then turn it into info that increases their profit margins, or "gets them off" on their political choices.  Doo-doo thinks he is doing a great service to dimokraps by stupidly pushing his krap.  P.S.  I know you already know this, I was just putting it in words doo-doo can understand.....maybe!!

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/22/2019 6:54:17 PM

"Now Doe, I don't really have the time to dissect this study with you, "

Dang, for somebody who likes to pretend (s)he's educated and intelligent, you're incredibly thick. I'd already gotten a copy of the study. I asked you where you got the "information" about Google's "Go Vote" election-day home page being sent selectively to certain districts. I saw the message on election day (and I live in a bright red district, county, and state) so that's not at issue. Who is saying that they were selectively using it to manipulate election results?

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	CRD
Date:	8/22/2019 7:11:33 PM

Unfortunately, I don't think doo-doo reads posts, he just posts stupid krap, pretends he's educated and intelligent, and thinks he's always sssssooooooo correct about all his stupid opinions (that are copied from socialist websites).

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/22/2019 7:43:06 PM

from the study you linked:

"We found substantial differences in vulnerability to SEME among a number of different demographic groups (SI Text). Although the groups we examined were overlapping and somewhat arbitrary, if one were manipulating an election, information about such differences would have enormous practical value. For example, we found that self-labeled Republicans were more vulnerable to SEME (VMP = 54.4%; 95% CI, 45.2–63.5%; McNemar’s test, P < 0.001) than were self-labeled Democrats (VMP = 37.7%; 95% CI, 32.3–43.1%; McNemar’s test, P < 0.001) and that self-labeled divorcees were more vulnerable (VMP = 46.7%; 95% CI, 32.1–61.2%; McNemar’s test, P < 0.001) than were self-labeled married subjects (VMP = 32.4%; 95% CI, 26.8–38.1%; McNemar’s test, P < 0.001). Among the most vulnerable groups we identified were Moderate Republicans (VMP = 80.0%; 95% CI, 62.5–97.5%; McNemar’s test, P < 0.001), whereas among the least vulnerable groups were people who reported a household income of $40,000 to $49,999 (VMP = 22.5%; 95% CI, 13.8–31.1%; McNemar’s test, P < 0.001).

So, CRD, you're definitely in the most gullible demographic. Unless you're a lot less prosperous than you want us to believe.

FYI, if you actually know how to use a earch engine, you can pretty easily overcome the inevitable skewing caused by commercial interests optimizing their metadata to get them to the top, "reputation management" folks doing likewise to replace negative information with positive, hostile foreign nations using bots to maximize search engine placement of their propaganda, etc.

Bottom line: the gullible will get sucked in, one way or another. Gullibility is not a disqualifier for eligilibility to vote, not is it illegal to lie to voters or to manipulate them by playing to their paranoid fears and their racism. About 35% of the country has been sucked in by #45, and y'all still have the right to vote.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/22/2019 10:01:47 PM

So now you have gone from labeling his work "junk science", to now hanging your hat on a cut and paste paragraph or two of a very in depth study.  If that is the case, you must now have acceptedthe author's premise that search engine single page manipulation can change an individual's perception of candidates without their knowing it.  It really does not matter who is more or less vulnerable, the fact remains that vulnerability does exist, that was his point, a fact that you were quick to dismiss many posts ago.  You are all over the place Doe. 

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	CRD
Date:	8/23/2019 8:36:17 AM

It is quite funny and telling that he believes that Russia through a few facebook posts altered the election to Trump - but that Google and other tech companies that millions of people use on a daily basis - possible manipulating data behind the scenes could not possible alter votes.

it is laughable on its face that Russia buying a few facebook ads altered the entire election, but the majority of people at google deciding to lean more left then center, altering who gets positive coverage and who does not can not even alter the mind of one person.

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/23/2019 8:43:57 AM

The allegation Epstein made to Congress - and in his "white paper" - is that Google themselves intenitonally skewed the results of web searches. Given the numerous ways in which web search results can be artificially skewed by third parties - see my earlier posts - that has not been established.

Intelligent, thinking people - those who actually know how to use a search engine, for example - will not change their votes based on the order of items appearing in search results. Most of us know better than to only look at the top 10 hits. Gullible people, OTOH, are readily influenced by all sorts of manipulations. If the order of search results is sufficient to change your vote, then there are thousands of other influences that are at least as likely to do so.

FYI, Google is a private, for-profit, company. Their entire revenue stream is based on click-throughs to advertisers' sites. Same with facebook, twitter, etc., etc. Are you really surprised to discover this? If so, you're even more gullible than was previously apparent.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Here's some information
Date:	8/23/2019 9:35:47 AM

You are obviously so much more intelligent and morally superior to the rest of us maybe you can explain something for us. How do you use delimiter s in google? You claim such superior knowledge surely you can help us all learn to get better results from our searches. It would be such a service to us poor pathetic simpletons.

Just kidding of course. I doubt you even know what a deliniator is and I known how to use them since Google launched. Besides that I don't even use google. There are several options available that give just as good or better results without bias and at least one engine that never tracks you. I even have posted here how to manipulate Google ads into populated your web pages with pleasant ads as opposed to whatever item you searched for last without the trick. But im sure you know this trick too, you being so superior and all

Just for the record these are examples of deliniators;

" "   +  -  and   or  with   without. 

These are the most commonly used ones. Do you know how to use them? Most don't but you are smarter than the rest of us so I'm sure you do.

I am so happy you showed up here to set us all straight. After 20+ years of active forum participation finally somebody smart enough to let us know how stupid we are. Thank you so much for that.

TRUMP 2020 - MAKE LIBERALS CRY AGAIN