Must Watch Video – Google Caught Manipulating Search Results in Favor of Hillary Clinton

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 8.58.22 AM

An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.

The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt—the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet—to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.

There is also another gap in play: The shrinking distance between Google and the Democratic Party. Former Google executive Stephanie Hannon is the Clinton campaign’s chief technology officer, and a host of ex-Googlers are currently employed as high-ranking technical staff at the Obama White House. Schmidt, for his part, is one of the most powerful donors in the Democratic Party—and his influence does not stem only from his wealth, estimated by Forbes at more than $10 billion.

According to campaign finance disclosures, Clinton’s campaign is the Groundwork’s only political client. Its employees are mostly back-end software developers with experience at blue-chip tech firms like Netflix, Dreamhost, and Google.

– From last year’s post: Meet “Groundwork” – Google Chairman Eric Schmidt’s Stealth Startup Working to Make Hillary Clinton President

I don’t often say drop everything you’re doing and watch this, but I am saying just that.

Drop everything you are doing and watch this.

The narrator mentioned a study by Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today. Politico covered the topic last year in a piece, How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election. Here are a few excerpts:

America’s next president could be eased into office not just by TV ads or speeches, but by Google’s secret decisions, and no one—except for me and perhaps a few other obscure researchers—would know how this was accomplished. 

Research I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections—indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs—than any company in history has ever had. Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson.

Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.

What we call in our research the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) turns out to be one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. Our comprehensive new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), includes the results of five experiments we conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. Because SEME is virtually invisible as a form of social influence, because the effect is so large and because there are currently no specific regulations anywhere in the world that would prevent Google from using and abusing this technique, we believe SEME is a serious threat to the democratic system of government. 

According to Google Trends, at this writing Donald Trump is currently trouncing all other candidates in search activity in 47 of 50 states. Could this activity push him higher in search rankings, and could higher rankings in turn bring him more support? Most definitely—depending, that is, on how Google employees choose to adjust numeric weightings in the search algorithm. Google acknowledges adjusting the algorithm 600 times a year, but the process is secret, so what effect Mr. Trump’s success will have on how he shows up in Google searches is presumably out of his hands.

Our new research leaves little doubt about whether Google has the ability to control voters. In laboratory and online experiments conducted in the United States, we were able to boost the proportion of people who favored any candidate by between 37 and 63 percent after just one search session. The impact of viewing biased rankings repeatedly over a period of weeks or months would undoubtedly be larger. 

In our basic experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which search rankings favored either Candidate A, Candidate B or neither candidate. Participants were given brief descriptions of each candidate and then asked how much they liked and trusted each candidate and whom they would vote for. Then they were allowed up to 15 minutes to conduct online research on the candidates using a Google-like search engine we created called Kadoodle. 

Each group had access to the same 30 search results—all real search results linking to real web pages from a past election. Only the ordering of the results differed in the three groups. People could click freely on any result or shift between any of five different results pages, just as one can on Google’s search engine. 

When our participants were done searching, we asked them those questions again, and, voilà: On all measures, opinions shifted in the direction of the candidate who was favored in the rankings. Trust, liking and voting preferences all shifted predictably.

There are three credible scenarios under which Google could easily be flipping elections worldwide as you read this: 

First, there is the Western Union Scenario: Google’s executives decide which candidate is best for us—and for the company, of course—and they fiddle with search rankings accordingly. There is precedent in the United States for this kind of backroom king-making. Rutherford B. Hayes, the 19th president of the United States, was put into office in part because of strong support by Western Union. In the late 1800s, Western Union had a monopoly on communications in America, and just before the election of 1876, the company did its best to assure that only positive news stories about Hayes appeared in newspapers nationwide. It also shared all the telegrams sent by his opponent’s campaign staff with Hayes’s staff. Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today’s high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration.

This makes the Facebook trending news scandal look like a news blip. This is one of the most significant news stories I have read all year. Please share it with everyone you know.

Screen Shot 2016-06-10 at 8.52.41 AM

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    however, clinton’s win was not a result of voter opinions being swayed, instead it was due to an active and massive effort to deny ballot access to sanders voters.

    now, if it was my job to fraudulently alter 132,000 voter records in brooklyn, i’d first need to identify those who plan to vote for sanders. that’s where i see google coming in – they’re the likeliest source for this data. it would be trivial for them to prepare a list (including voter’s full names and addresses) based on search history criteria/time spent browsing

    which is far far more evil than simply gaming search results.

    • MrLiberty

      Indeed. Voter suppression is likely just the beginning. “Pre-crime” convictions can’t be far off.

  • cstahnke

    I think this is the future. One of the things I’ve noticed is the gradual move of power from the State to the various Dukedoms around the world. The corporations are, essentially, feudal states who ally themselves with various candidates to be the POTUS. Google is a very big Dukedom and their “house” requires power because that’s what Dukedoms do. Google, like all major corporations want a seat at the table. A friendly POTUS gives a corporation lots of options to make policy. Most policy, as we all know here, are made by corporations and their agents. Unless we organize our own virtual city-states we are at the mercy of the gentry.

  • U3O8

    Google is the BORG & it’s been rigged long ago since at least the Kennedy schwack.
    Treasonus & colluding w/ the criminals long ago. The fix is way past the ballot box.
    Rigguing elections far longer than the American people really want to know. And since a lot of it is digital all of that is manipulated clearly. The even think not or grasp that reality is beyond naive & ignorant.

  • jo6pac

    google making Edward Barneys proud.

    • This quote makes perfect sense, “The opposition is indispensable. A good statesman, like any other sensible human being, always learns more from his opposition than from his fervent supporters.” Walter Lippmann

  • This is just tin foil hat stuff don’t you know? Sarc/off!

    Dec 19, 2013 Google BUYS Eight MILITARY ROBOTICS Companies SO FAR!

    Robotics companies FUNDED BY the Department Of Defense and the latest one Google bought designs robotics FOR the Department Of Defense. Google is buying up all of these big military robotics companies. GOOGLE HAS JOINED THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!

    Dec 21, 2013 Creator of Creepy DARPA Robots Questioned On Military Funding & Google Purchase

    With reportedly over $10 million in funding from the Pentagon, Raibert is asked if his robots will be used by the U.S. military for its perpetual nation-building and aggressive wars.

    12.02.14 A Googler’s Quest to Teach Machines How to Understand Emotions

    A digital photo is nothing but numbers, he says, and if you separate the spoken word into individual phonemes, you can translate these into numbers too.

  • MrLiberty

    When the installation of a software “patch” into a Diebold voting machine can simply change registered votes, what is the need for any of the rest, and how can anyone take the process of voting seriously anymore. It is bad enough that voting itself is an act of violence against your fellow citizens, but deluding yourself into actually believing that the process is not completely controlled from beginning to end by the powers that be is simply ignorant. The power of the Google manipulation of its searches is seem more in the shift of public sentiment towards compliance with government and ruling elite dictates and actions. People are sheep and easily led. 12 years of government monopoly education, 24/7 media propaganda, and the voices of nearly every politician on BOTH sides of the aisle in support of government control over our lives, our economy, our income, our freedoms, our property, and our liberties only destroys the natural inclination towards independent thought. Stop worrying about Hillary and start worrying about the mentality in America that has brought us to a Trump/Hillary contest while WW3 is being actively provoked by our government, $19+ Trillion is owed to creditors, and $250+ Trillion is in the pipelines being owed on unsustainable entitlement programs like SS, Medicare, and Medicare PartD.

  • Brockland A.T.

    Its doubtful that Google is that effective during elections. Most people online have favorite news, blog and forum sites for vetting candidates.

    Who actually sits down and makes decisions based on the experimental protocol? Most people have an opinion and go around searching for support for it.

  • Keith

    Why do I have to sign in to watch the video, sounds like a way of keeping tabs on anyone who may have a problem with them…
    You know who I mean.