But how is Google/Youtube influencing minds of the electorate?
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
Comments
-
Youtube’s influence on the electorate is convincing alienated teens and adult shut-ins that failed academic Jordan Peterson is a generational philosopher for saying shit like “boys need to clean their rooms”.
-
Helps Trump IMO
-
My mom was ahead of her timeHardlyClothed said:Youtube’s influence on the electorate is convincing alienated teens and adult shut-ins that failed academic Jordan Peterson is a generational philosopher for saying shit like “boys need to clean their rooms”.
-
Is responsible voter synonymous with effective critical thinking adult? Or is age just a number?
-
65,800,000 examples say “No”
-
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still. -
Right. And in your mind @pawz the brietbart dick sucking video should be the first link.
-
Leftist computer nerds fucking up America.
-
See the Sledog's of the world as another reason "the right" is losing in the rankings.Sledog said:Leftist computer nerds fucking up America.
-
WilburHooksHands said:
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
This makes sense.
Forgive me however, for my suspicion when I see the words "Trump Sexual Predator" in a row, in a query about something completely different. -
You're not there yet.Gwad said:Is responsible voter synonymous with effective critical thinking adult? Or is age just a number?
Sometimes I think you're getting close.
But not yet. -
Me thinks effective critical thinking begins with source material, not others interpretation of source material.Gwad said:Is responsible voter synonymous with effective critical thinking adult? Or is age just a number?
Wouldn't you agree? -
Yeah it had all the words "Trump" "state" "of" "the" "union." Search breaks everything down. It that case, it's not looking for all of those in a row for whatever reason.pawz said:WilburHooksHands said:
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
This makes sense.
Forgive me however, for my suspicion when I see the words "Trump Sexual Predator" in a row, in a query about something completely different. -
I do not. But the problem that requires proper discernment in this thread eludes me.pawz said:
Me thinks effective critical thinking begins with source material, not others interpretation of source material.Gwad said:Is responsible voter synonymous with effective critical thinking adult? Or is age just a number?
Wouldn't you agree? -
Sounds like you have been looking up tips for being a sexual predator and biasing the engine. I know this, because when I performed the search you suggested, Trump Sexual Predator was number 1.pawz said:WilburHooksHands said:
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
This makes sense.
Forgive me however, for my suspicion when I see the words "Trump Sexual Predator" in a row, in a query about something completely different. -
I am constantly sweating grindr ads when I have share my screen for presentations.Swaye said:
Sounds like you have been looking up tips for being a sexual predator and biasing the engine. I know this, because when I performed the search you suggested, Trump Sexual Predator was number 1.pawz said:WilburHooksHands said:
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
This makes sense.
Forgive me however, for my suspicion when I see the words "Trump Sexual Predator" in a row, in a query about something completely different. -
I have to spend a good ten minutes a day wiping everything on the company iPad before I turn it in daily. Can't have piles of metadata of gay porn, sexual stalker guidebook searches, and me and @dnc Facetiming nude.WilburHooksHands said:
I am constantly sweating grindr ads when I have share my screen for presentations.Swaye said:
Sounds like you have been looking up tips for being a sexual predator and biasing the engine. I know this, because when I performed the search you suggested, Trump Sexual Predator was number 1.pawz said:WilburHooksHands said:
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
This makes sense.
Forgive me however, for my suspicion when I see the words "Trump Sexual Predator" in a row, in a query about something completely different. -
You're right that there's a lot more going on behind the algorithms:WilburHooksHands said:
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
You're wrong that Google isn't inherently biased:
"the left" is not more likely to seek this stuff out, they just don't get de-platformed. Dennis Prager is a faggot, but there's no way his videos should be demonetized and suppressed:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/356966-prageru-sues-google-youtube-for-censoring-conservative-videos
Then there was the time twitter simply removed the most popular hashtag because they didn't like it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4uavdb/twitter_users_erupt_dncleaks_disappears_from/
This is absolutely happening and it's absolutely deliberate. -
SarkFanSixtyNine said:
You're right that there's a lot more going on behind the algorithms:WilburHooksHands said:
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
You're wrong that Google isn't inherently biased:
"the left" is not more likely to seek this stuff out, they just don't get de-platformed. Dennis Prager is a faggot, but there's no way his videos should be demonetized and suppressed:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/356966-prageru-sues-google-youtube-for-censoring-conservative-videos
Then there was the time twitter simply removed the most popular hashtag because they didn't like it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4uavdb/twitter_users_erupt_dncleaks_disappears_from/
This is absolutely happening and it's absolutely deliberate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnanMKvgnUc
Man...you really shouldn't have done that.
-
Im talking about Google, not the social media examples you posted. There could be something to the Hill article, but thats about labeling videos as restricted content and not relevant to Pawz observation.
The autocomplete differences could be attributed to Google having 3-5x the search volume of those other engines combined. Different inputs give different results. Those can also be manipulated and you dont know the context or timing of those searches. I just tried that and got vastly different results, as Im sure we all would. Google is a faceless giant and I think you are right to want to make sure they are using their influence ethically, but a random screenshot of an autocomplete is useless.
-
This is my Google. FWIW
-
yea okWilburHooksHands said:Im talking about Google, not the social media examples you posted. There could be something to the Hill article, but thats about labeling videos as restricted content and not relevant to Pawz observation.
The autocomplete differences could be attributed to Google having 3-5x the search volume of those other engines combined. Different inputs give different results. Those can also be manipulated and you dont know the context or timing of those searches. I just tried that and got vastly different results, as Im sure we all would. Google is a faceless giant and I think you are right to want to make sure they are using their influence ethically, but a random screenshot of an autocomplete is useless.
"But for Clinton, they appear to be withheld even when those same terms are proven to be extremely popular in Google Trends – thus disproving the company’s claim that autocomplete shows the most popular terms people are searching for."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html -
What about Trump? You know you can do this on your phone too.SarkFanSixtyNine said:
yea okWilburHooksHands said:Im talking about Google, not the social media examples you posted. There could be something to the Hill article, but thats about labeling videos as restricted content and not relevant to Pawz observation.
The autocomplete differences could be attributed to Google having 3-5x the search volume of those other engines combined. Different inputs give different results. Those can also be manipulated and you dont know the context or timing of those searches. I just tried that and got vastly different results, as Im sure we all would. Google is a faceless giant and I think you are right to want to make sure they are using their influence ethically, but a random screenshot of an autocomplete is useless.
"But for Clinton, they appear to be withheld even when those same terms are proven to be extremely popular in Google Trends – thus disproving the company’s claim that autocomplete shows the most popular terms people are searching for."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785801/Is-Google-manipulating-autocomplete-results-favor-Clinton.html
-
Turn off autocomplete on Chrome. Problem solved.
-
That Google Trends data is real, there is no doubting that. This is since 2004 in a query I just did:SarkFanSixtyNine said:yea ok
That being said, why would Google suppress it from Search, but not Trends, which is just as public? Again, those screenshots of the search suppression have zero dates and zero context. The research done in that Daily Mail article also sounded very legit:
Finally:
-
That's funny shit.WilburHooksHands said:
That Google Trends data is real, there is no doubting that. This is since 2004 in a query I just did:SarkFanSixtyNine said:yea ok
That being said, why would Google suppress it from Search, but not Trends, which is just as public? Again, those screenshots of the search suppression have zero dates and zero context. The research done in that Daily Mail article also sounded very legit:
Finally: -
Stick with your original gut feeling and the evidence you presented in the original poast. You're spot on correct. Google/YouTube are leftist enemies of free speech. Proven fact that they've attempted to silence views they don't agree with. Petersens videos are a case in point. They tried to shut him down. And many, many others.pawz said:WilburHooksHands said:
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
This makes sense.
Forgive me however, for my suspicion when I see the words "Trump Sexual Predator" in a row, in a query about something completely different. -
And it's high time these practices should be absolutely against the law. The internet is where most people go to get their info. If you have most of these monopolies censoring views they don't agree with, it makes them more powerful than the government, and potentially more dangerous.SarkFanSixtyNine said:
You're right that there's a lot more going on behind the algorithms:WilburHooksHands said:
This is just not how search engines work, there is a lot more going on behind an algorithm in addition to just keywords. They are also heavily weighing reach, "reputability," social signals, etc... In that way, search engines are inherently biased towards whoever is consuming particular content at the time.pawz said:Like a *ahem* responsible voter, I ventured out to the interwebs to see exactly what POTUS had to say for the SOTU. I wanted nothing more, nothing less. In his own words.
So I went to Youtube to look for the speech. I entered what I thought was an innocuous search:
trump state of the union
It's logical to think that upon entering the aforementioned search criteria, the first result would be the SOTU speech.
Not so fast.
What came up was in order of appearance was 'Fact and Fiction', Socialist Rebuttal, "Trump: Sexual Predator", more reaction, a 'LIVE' feed (no longer available), Jimmy Kimmel & Stormy Daniels and on and on.
In fact, to see just the speech and nothing but the speech, one had to scroll down to the FOURTEENTH result.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I'm sure #aclockworkshill will fill us in on HRC's thoughts.
In this case, it seems like there was more interest/traffic/links about rebuttals than the actual speech. This is totally anecdotal, but I think "the left" is probably more likely to seek out this stuff on sites themselves, which then boosts them in the algorithm. "The right" seems to stick more to Facebook and social media for their discourse for obvious reasons. Social signals I don't think are weighed as heavily in the algorithm, so in a way the major outlets non-coverage of conservative talking points will suppress it online via side-effect.
So again, Google isn't inherently biased, but a biased user base can sway results. Search engines or Russian bots/trolls, pick your poison.
Edit: I also know your original poont was that you were just looking for the speech itself, not conservative viewpoints. But still.
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
You're wrong that Google isn't inherently biased:
"the left" is not more likely to seek this stuff out, they just don't get de-platformed. Dennis Prager is a faggot, but there's no way his videos should be demonetized and suppressed:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/356966-prageru-sues-google-youtube-for-censoring-conservative-videos
Then there was the time twitter simply removed the most popular hashtag because they didn't like it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4uavdb/twitter_users_erupt_dncleaks_disappears_from/
This is absolutely happening and it's absolutely deliberate. -
Boobs thinks everything's aight. If he doesn't see it it isn't happening.
