But how is Google/Youtube influencing minds of the electorate?

dflea said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

SarkFanSixtyNine said:

WilburHooksHands said:

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.

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.

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.

You're right that there's a lot more going on behind the algorithms:
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.

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.

obk needs the government to babysit him when he's online.

The right has Fox News to disseminate their bullshit, and the left has google.

Quit crying, you whiny cunt.