Name:   johndoe - Subject:   Sans Google Trump likely won the popular vote Date:   8/21/2019 3:55:38 PM

"So says a study by a Hillary supporting professor." 

Lemme make sure I get this straight: you're saying that he is more credible because he supported Hillary? Hmmm again....

Here's some real information about the professor and the "study:

"That was the study Epstein described in his Senate committee testimony, where he didn’t mention that his huge claim is based on monitoring the search results of just 21 undecided voters out of 95 voters for a 2017 white paper. In his submitted testimony, Epstein did provide seven pages of citations—but all of them are papers or op-eds he wrote or co-wrote himself. Only one of them....was peer-reviewed. Even that study didn’t demonstrate that this has actually happened.

This is not even junk science; it is wild, statistically invalid, speculation.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say you believe the "study's" conclusions. That means you believe that biased search results influence votes. By logical extension, you must also believe that false information presented as truth in highly-targeted social media advertisements that were paid for by a hostile foreign power would also influence votes.

So, to summarize: you're directly promoting three speculative, unsupported allegations - that search engine results are biased, that that bias is in favor of a Democratic presidential candidate, and that such bias can provably change millions of votes. In doing so, you're saying just as directly that proven, intentional false advertising by a hostile foreign power could potentially alter votes.

Good job, MM. You just dug yourself a deep enough hole that you can't climb out.