Friday, June 10, 2016

"Google caught manipulating search results for Hillary Clinton"

Jookos:  Website SourceFed has uncovered evidence showing Google Search Suggestions being manipulated in order to show Hillary Clinton’s opponents in a negative light while showing only positive results for Clinton. Watch the video below show just how Google manipulated its search suggestions knowingly (despite the videos claim no one may have known, clearly someone knew).

Link to video

Speaking of manipulation (photoshopped donut) 

18 comments:

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

How easy it is to flip a phrase: "Don't Be Evil"

ndspinelli said...

I frequent Google News. My reaction is "DUH!" A Google lobbyist is the most frequent guest @ the WH. Even more frequent than Al Sharpton.

AprilApple said...

So just like the regular hack press.

AprilApple said...

Trump should say he will ban all lobbyists.

AprilApple said...

Lobbying should be illegal anyway.

Calypso Facto said...

We wouldn't need lobbying if gov't didn't have its paws on every facet of our existence. As it is, with big gov't acting like a insiders-only steamroller, lobbying is a requirement for self-protection.

chickelit said...

Google further undermines its own integrity. The video shows this is not paranoid thinking. Thinks for linking, Lem.

edutcher said...

The Citizens of the World and America Lasters cheating?

Wow, color me shocked.

PS You need to know how Gargoyle works.

There's a selection called Search Tools that lets to refine the criteria by relevance and date. You can also use this little doohickey to really granularize your search.

edutcher said...

AprilApple said...

Trump should say he will ban all lobbyists.

Maybe from his Administration, he might, but I think you'd need an Act of Congress to make it stick across the board.

chickelit said...

A spoonerism seems appropriate for a photo caption: "honut doles"

Chip Ahoy said...

He's right. I tried [hllary clinton cri] and got the exact same results in both. But I had to go to their sites to inquire, not Safari's own choice of search engines. Those autocompletes do not match.

Well done.

Notice how videos for youngsters insert photos of the things spoken in a list with sound effects of the items wooshing in and out, expecting that doesn't distract, and it doesn't, because he is talking to wandering minds, it's the videographer's way of slapping them through the list he is reciting, showing what he is saying, in rapid succession like an agility course dog weaving through upright sticks, or else their minds will wander. He shows them what to see when he says it, and not all that just to indulge childish insertion.

Yes, well done, very good. All the way to the end where I cut you off cold right here.

Got it!

This is what I've been talking about. The newer Comcast connection with these remotes causes the monitor to freeze on the last frame when you clicked. When you click off as a man is speaking you catch his facial expression as he is talking.

Men are sick liars.

They just are. This is the insincerity that some mental patience see. This is what makes them laugh when politicians are speaking. They're seeing all the expressions that occur in-between the facial expressions transmitted for approval. And those in-betwen facial expression comprise the bulk, surprisingly, for almost whenever I stop the lie is reveled through the face. The phenomena is amazing.

Women's faces freeze beautifully. They're either less bullshitters, or else much better at masking their lies. Their faces appear natural when clicked off, but men mostly do not. But when women are lying, holy shit, does it ever show. Their faces frozen when clicking off from them and it holds there until the next channel displaces it is utterly ridiculously disingenuous. (It's why it's so easy to get ridiculous looking screen grabs of politicians)

I screen grabbed the guy just as he begins his sanctimonious disclaimer at the end. He did go on with disposition and I didn't need to hear that twice. And sure enough his face says, "Now I am being an airy disingenuous cunt, and for some reason that's rather important to me."

You are accusing the man of the crime of manipulating information on a national scale. Don't attempt to then say, hey, it's not really an actual crime

See? I am myself disturbed and react the way the kids in the mental place do.

Chip Ahoy said...

Mental patients.

Rabel said...

Lem, Lem, Lem. Is the exposure to Trooper dragging your mind down into the gutter with the rest of us. What if that picture pops into my head the next time I eat a doughnut?

bagoh20 said...

The same thing happens with searches like "Bernie Maddof cri", or "Bill Cosby cri". For some reason Google does not suggest "crimes" for celebrity names. I don't know why "crickets" makes sense before "crimes", but it's not Hillary specific.

I'm sure the makers of this video found that out too, so why did they not mention it?


http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google-debunked

Methadras said...

One is young and tight, the other is neither.

Trooper York said...

Hey Rabel don't take after that crazed stalker. Not everything is my fault.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Unfortunately, I'm totally unsurprised.

Nice donut photo. ;-)

Rhythm and Balls said...

A spoonerism seems appropriate for a photo caption: "honut doles"

Whoah. Love it.