{"id":48983,"date":"2016-09-13T09:53:55","date_gmt":"2016-09-13T13:53:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=48983"},"modified":"2016-09-13T09:54:16","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T13:54:16","slug":"sputnik-exclusive-research-proves-google-manipulates-millions-to-favor-clinton","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=48983","title":{"rendered":"SPUTNIK EXCLUSIVE: Research Proves Google Manipulates Millions to Favor Clinton"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"1045221440\"<\/a>
\nSputnikNews.com
\nIn this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google’s search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Biased search rankings can swing votes and alter opinions, and a new study shows that Google’s autocomplete can too.<\/p>\n

A scientific study<\/a> I published last year showed that search rankings favoring one candidate can quickly convince undecided voters to\u00a0vote for\u00a0that candidate\u00a0\u2014 as\u00a0many as\u00a080 percent of\u00a0voters in\u00a0some demographic groups. My latest research shows that a search engine could also shift votes and change opinions with\u00a0another powerful tool:autocomplete<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Because of recent claims<\/a> that Google has been deliberately tinkering with\u00a0search suggestions to\u00a0make Hillary Clinton look good, this is probably a good time both to\u00a0examine those claims and to\u00a0look at\u00a0my new research. As you will see, there is some cause for\u00a0concern here.<\/p>\n

In June of\u00a0this year, Sourcefed released a video claiming that Google’s search suggestions\u00a0\u2014 often called “autocomplete” suggestions\u00a0\u2014 were biased in\u00a0favor of\u00a0Mrs. Clinton. The video quickly went viral: the full 7-minute version<\/a> has now been viewed more than\u00a0a million times on\u00a0YouTube, and an abridged 3-minute version<\/a> has been viewed more than\u00a025 million times on\u00a0Facebook.<\/p>\n

The video’s narrator, Matt Lieberman, showed screen print after\u00a0screen print that appeared to\u00a0demonstrate that searching for\u00a0just about\u00a0anything related to\u00a0Mrs. Clinton generated positive suggestions only. This occurred even though Bing and Yahoo searches produced both positive and negative suggestions and even though Google Trends data showed that searches on\u00a0Google that characterize Mrs. Clinton negatively are quite common\u00a0\u2014 far more common in\u00a0some cases than\u00a0the search terms Google was suggesting. Lieberman also showed that autocomplete did<\/em> offer negative suggestions for\u00a0Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

“The intention is clear,” said Lieberman. “Google is burying potential searches for\u00a0terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in\u00a0the primary elections over\u00a0the past\u00a0several months by\u00a0manipulating recommendations on\u00a0their site.”<\/p>\n

Google responded<\/a> to\u00a0the Sourcefed video in\u00a0an email to\u00a0the Washington Times<\/em>, denying everything. According to\u00a0the company’s spokesperson, “Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause.” The company explained away the apparently damning findings by\u00a0saying that “Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in\u00a0conjunction with\u00a0a person’s name.”<\/p>\n

Since then, my associates and I at\u00a0the American Institute for\u00a0Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT)\u00a0\u2014 a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in\u00a0the San Diego area\u00a0\u2014 have been systematically investigating Lieberman’s claims. What we have learned has generally supported those claims, but\u00a0we have also learned something new\u00a0\u2014 something quite disturbing\u00a0\u2014 about\u00a0the power of\u00a0Google’s search suggestions to\u00a0alter what people search for.<\/p>\n

Lieberman insisted that Google’s search suggestions were biased, but\u00a0he never explained why<\/em> Google would introduce such bias. Our new research suggests why\u00a0\u2014 and also why Google’s lists of\u00a0search suggestions are typically much shorter than\u00a0the lists Bing and Yahoo show us.<\/p>\n

Our investigation is ongoing, but\u00a0here is what we have learned so far:<\/p>\n

Bias in\u00a0Clinton’s Favor<\/strong><\/p>\n

To test Lieberman’s claim that Google’s search suggestions are biased in\u00a0Mrs. Clinton’s favor, my associates and I have been looking at\u00a0the suggestions Google shows us in\u00a0response to\u00a0hundreds of\u00a0different election-related search terms. To minimize the possibility that those suggestions were customized for\u00a0us as\u00a0individuals (based on\u00a0the massive personal profiles Google has assembled for\u00a0virtually all Americans), we have conducted our searches through\u00a0proxy servers\u00a0\u2014 even through\u00a0the Tor network\u00a0\u2014 thus making it difficult for\u00a0Google to\u00a0identify us. We also cleared the fingerprints Google leaves on\u00a0computers (cache and cookies) fairly obsessively.<\/p>\n

Google says its search bar is programmed to\u00a0avoid suggesting searches that portray people in\u00a0a negative light. As far as\u00a0we can tell, this claim is false.<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, we are finding that Lieberman was right: It is somewhat difficult to\u00a0get the Google search bar to\u00a0suggest negative searches related to\u00a0Mrs. Clinton or to\u00a0make any Clinton-related suggestions when one types a negative search term. Bing and Yahoo, on\u00a0the other hand, often show a number of\u00a0negative suggestions in\u00a0response to\u00a0the same search terms. Bing and Yahoo seem to\u00a0be showing us what people are actually searching for; Google is showing us something else\u00a0\u2014 but\u00a0what, and for\u00a0what purpose?<\/p>\n

As for\u00a0Google Trends, as\u00a0Lieberman reported, Google indeed withholds negative search terms for\u00a0Mrs. Clinton even when such terms show high popularity in\u00a0Trends. We have also found that Google often suggests positive<\/em> search terms for\u00a0Mrs. Clinton even when such terms are nearly invisible in\u00a0Trends. The widely held belief, reinforced by\u00a0Google’s own documentation<\/a>, that Google’s search suggestions are based on “what other people are searching for” seems to\u00a0be untrue in\u00a0many instances.<\/p>\n

Google’s Explanation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Google tries to\u00a0explain away such findings by\u00a0saying its search bar is programmed to\u00a0avoid suggesting searches that portray people in\u00a0a negative light. As far as\u00a0we can tell, this claim is false; Google suppresses negative suggestions selectively, not across\u00a0the board. It is easy to\u00a0get autocomplete to\u00a0suggest negative searches related to\u00a0prominent people, one of\u00a0whom happens to\u00a0be Mrs. Clinton’s opponent.<\/p>\n

A picture is often worth a thousand words, so let’s look at\u00a0a few examples that appear both to\u00a0support Lieberman’s perspective and refute Google’s. After that, we’ll examine some counterexamples.<\/p>\n

Before we start, I need to\u00a0point out\u00a0a problem: If you try to\u00a0replicate the searches I will show you, you will likely get different results. I don’t think that invalidates our work, but\u00a0you will have to\u00a0decide for\u00a0yourself. Your results might be different because search activity changes over\u00a0time, and that, in\u00a0turn, affects search suggestions. There is also the “personalization problem.” If you are like\u00a0the vast majority of\u00a0people, you freely allow Google to track you<\/a> 24 hours a day. As a result, Google knows who you are when you are typing something in\u00a0its search bar, and it sends you customized results.<\/p>\n

For both of\u00a0these reasons, you might doubt the validity of\u00a0the conclusions I will draw in\u00a0this essay. That is up\u00a0to you. All I can say in\u00a0my defense is that I have worked with\u00a0eight other people in\u00a0recent months to\u00a0try to\u00a0conduct a fair and balanced investigation, and, as\u00a0I said, we have taken several precautions to\u00a0try to\u00a0get generic, non-customized search suggestions rather than\u00a0the customized kind. Our investigation is also ongoing, and I encourage you to\u00a0conduct your own, as\u00a0well.<\/p>\n

Let’s start with\u00a0a very simple search. The image below\u00a0shows a search for “Hillary Clinton is ” (notice the space after is<\/em>) conducted on\u00a0August 3rd on\u00a0Bing, Yahoo, and Google. As you can see, both Bing and Yahoo displayed multiple negative suggestions such as “Hillary Clinton is a liar” and “Hillary Clinton is a criminal,” but\u00a0Google is showed only two suggestions, both of\u00a0which were almost absurdly positive: “Hillary Clinton is winning” and “Hillary Clinton is awesome.”<\/p>\n

\"\u201cHillary\u201cHillary Clinton is \u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

To find out\u00a0what people actually searched for, let’s turn to\u00a0Google Trends\u00a0\u2014 Google’s tabulation of\u00a0the popularity of\u00a0search results. Below you will see a comparison between\u00a0the popularity of\u00a0searching for “Hillary Clinton is a liar” and the popularity of\u00a0searching for “Hillary Clinton is awesome.” This image was also generated on\u00a0August 3rd. “Hillary Clinton is a liar” was by\u00a0far the more popular search term; hardly anyone conducted a search using the phrase, “Hillary Clinton is awesome.”<\/p>\n

\"\u201cHillary
\n\u201cHillary Clinton is awesome.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Okay, but\u00a0Google admits that it censors negative search results; presumably, that is why we only saw positive results for\u00a0Mrs. Clinton\u00a0\u2014 even a result that virtually no one searched for. Does Google really suppress negative results? We have seen what happens with “Hillary Clinton is.” What happens with “Donald Trump is “? (Again, be sure to\u00a0include the space after is.)<\/p>\n

\"\u201cDonald
\n\u201cDonald Trump is \u201c?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the above\u00a0image, captured on\u00a0August 8th, we again found the odd “awesome” suggestion, but\u00a0we also saw a suggestion that appears to\u00a0be negative: “Donald Trump is dead.” Shouldn’t a result like\u00a0that have been suppressed? Let’s look further.<\/p>\n

Consider the following\u00a0searches, conducted on\u00a0August 2nd, for “anti Hillary” and “anti Trump.” As you can see below, “anti Hillary” generated no<\/em> suggestions, but “anti Trump” generated four, including “anti Trump cartoon” and “anti Trump song.” Well, you say, perhaps there were<\/em> no anti-Hillary suggestions to\u00a0be made. But Yahoo\u00a0\u2014 responding merely to “anti Hill”\u00a0\u2014 came up\u00a0with eight, including “anti Hillary memes” and “anti Hillary jokes.”<\/p>\n

\"\u201canti
\n\u201canti Hillary\u201d and \u201canti Trump.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

This seems to\u00a0further refute Google’s claim about\u00a0not disparaging people, but\u00a0let’s dig deeper.<\/p>\n

After Mrs. Clinton named Senator Tim Kaine to\u00a0be her running mate, Mr. Trump dubbed him with\u00a0one of\u00a0his middle-school-style nicknames: “Corrupt Kaine.” Sure enough, that instantly became a popular search term on\u00a0Google, as\u00a0this July 27th image from\u00a0Trends confirms:<\/p>\n

\"\u201cCorrupt<\/p>\n

Even so, as\u00a0you can see in\u00a0the image below, in\u00a0response to “corrupt,” the Google search bar showed us nothing<\/em> about\u00a0Senator Kaine, but\u00a0it did<\/em> show us both “Kamala” (Kamala Harris, attorney general of\u00a0California) and “Karzai” (Hamid Karzai, former president of\u00a0Afghanistan). If you clicked on\u00a0the phrases “corrupt Kamala” and “corrupt Karzai,” search results appeared that linked to\u00a0highly negative web pages about\u00a0Kamala Harris and Hamid Karzai, respectively.<\/p>\n

Oddly enough, both on\u00a0the day we looked up “corrupt Kaine” and more recently when I was writing this essay, Google Trends provided no<\/em> popularity data for\u00a0either “corrupt Kamala” or “corrupt Karzai.” It is hard to\u00a0imagine, in\u00a0any case, that either search term has been popular in\u00a0recent months. So why did the Google search bar disparage Attorney General Harris and President Karzai but\u00a0not Mrs. Clinton?<\/p>\n

\"\u201ccorrupt<\/p>\n

If you still have doubts about\u00a0whether Google suggests negative searches for\u00a0prominent people, see how Senators Cruz, Rubio and Sanders fared in\u00a0the following\u00a0searches conducted between\u00a0July 23rd and August 2nd:<\/p>\n

\"Searches<\/p>\n

\"Searches<\/p>\n

\"Searches<\/p>\n

I could give you more examples, but\u00a0you get the idea.<\/p>\n

The brazenness of\u00a0Google’s search suggestion tinkering become especially clear when we searched for “crooked”\u00a0\u2014 Mr. Trump’s unkind nickname for\u00a0Mrs. Clinton\u00a0\u2014 on\u00a0Google, Bing, and Yahoo on\u00a0various dates in\u00a0June and July. On Google the word “crooked” alone generated nothing for\u00a0Mrs. Clinton, even though, once again, its popularity was clear on\u00a0Google Trends. Now compare (in the image following\u00a0the Trends graph) what happened on\u00a0Bing and Yahoo:<\/p>\n

\"\u201ccrooked\u201d<\/p>\n

Continue reading HERE<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

___
\nhttp:\/\/sputniknews.com\/us\/20160912\/1045214398\/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48983","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48983","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=48983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48983\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=48983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=48983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=48983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}