Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Show your support for what this community means to you:


Choose a Donation Amount
Username (required for credit)



Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Take a look around and join the community. Have a topic? Join us and start a thread.

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

2»

Comments

  • WilburHooksHandsWilburHooksHands Posts: 4,177
    2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    edited January 31
    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.
    TierbsHsotBoobs
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Posts: 16,593
    10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes
    This is my Google. FWIW

    photo 0F4F596D-D532-4644-892F-84945C8A6CBA_zpstyql3yfl.png
    pawz
  • 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.

    yea ok


    "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
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Posts: 16,593
    10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes

    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.

    yea ok


    "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.

    photo C2C0EEFC-D6E4-4C31-8F83-9A17CE4C12C9_zpsosofhfgd.png
  • AZDuckAZDuck Posts: 14,744
    10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary Fucktard of the Week Award
    Turn off autocomplete on Chrome. Problem solved.
    TierbsHsotBoobsMikeDamone
  • yea ok

    That Google Trends data is real, there is no doubting that. This is since 2004 in a query I just did:



    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:


    2001400exTierbsHsotBoobsGrundleStiltzkinThomasFremont
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Posts: 16,593
    10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes


    yea ok

    That Google Trends data is real, there is no doubting that. This is since 2004 in a query I just did:



    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.
    TierbsHsotBoobsMikeDamone
  • pawz 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.

    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.
    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.
    TierbsHsotBoobs
  • 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.
    TierbsHsotBoobsGrundleStiltzkin
  • Boobs thinks everything's aight. If he doesn't see it it isn't happening.
    TierbsHsotBoobsGrundleStiltzkin
  • GwadGwad Posts: 946
    250 Answers 500 Up Votes 500 Awesomes 500 Comments
    Why don't we just pool our passion and work out a way to educate children so they can discern for themselves in an effective manner. We can all agree going to school and just regurgitating information has been deemed not effective?
    TierbsHsotBoobs
  • dfleadflea Posts: 3,671
    Butler Cabin Supporter 2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes

    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.
    oregonblitzkriegGrundleStiltzkinTierbsHsotBoobsMikeDamone
  • oregonblitzkriegoregonblitzkrieg Posts: 10,452
    5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    edited February 1
    dflea 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.
    You're a faggot lefttard, of course you support censorship.
    GrundleStiltzkinTierbsHsotBoobs
  • You can eat shit too, faggot hollow man, I see you there.
    TierbsHsotBoobs
  • dfleadflea Posts: 3,671
    Butler Cabin Supporter 2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    You seem upset.

    Do you want us to call your mom?
    TierbsHsotBoobsMikeDamone
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Posts: 9,829
    5000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes
    dflea said:

    You seem upset.

    Do you want us to call your mom?

    I have her number
    dfleaTierbsHsotBoobspawz
Sign In or Register to comment.