This psychologist claims Google search results unfairly steer voters to the left. Conservatives love him
The idea that Google is subtly pushing masses of voters to the left has the ring of conspiracy, and thus the work of Robert Epstein is warmly embraced by conservative lawmakers — as well as a president — convinced big tech is plotting against them.
Yet even some scholars who think the San Diego-based psychologist is wrong about the political impact of search engines — he believes bias built into Google’s processes could have cost Republicans three California congressional districts in the last election — have started paying attention to his detailed work on how voters respond to tens of thousands of search results.
By EVAN HALPER
March 24, 2019
LA TIMES
The idea that Google is subtly pushing masses of voters to the left has the ring of conspiracy, and thus the work of Robert Epstein is warmly embraced by conservative lawmakers — as well as a president — convinced big tech is plotting against them.
Yet even some scholars who think the San Diego-based psychologist is wrong about the political impact of search engines — he believes bias built into Google’s processes could have cost Republicans three California congressional districts in the last election — have started paying attention to his detailed work on how voters respond to tens of thousands of search results.
At a moment when misinformation about search engines and social media bias is rampant, with both the left and the right amplifying unsupported claims, Epstein is asking the right questions, they say, about the unseen power of algorithms and how little most Americans understand about the way they work.
Facebook, Twitter and Google have become political footballs for the left and right »
The saga of the persistent San Diego psychologist versus the tech giant is a long-running one, full of twists. As Big Data shapes our opinions in ways scholars are only beginning to comprehend, his work has increasingly caught attention.
Arm yourself as a citizen of Free America with the best defense you have: your Constitution. Join Free America Law Center today and enjoy voting rights on future cases, a Bill of Rights book series by Barnes Law School, a weekly podcast featuring constitutional expert Robert Barnes and exclusive invitations to future events for the Citizens of ’76 and our nation’s leading freedom fighters.
Google’s Search-Ranking Manipulation Is Affecting Elections
AS THE 2018 MIDTERM ELECTIONS APPROACH IN THE U.S., Google’s power to influence undecided voters remains overshadowed by Facebook’s personal data crisis.
Facebook has “taken it on the chin” for its role in the 2016 presidential election, and organizations like the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica and the Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency have dominated headlines. Yet despite having a troubling history and collecting more personal data through more products than Facebook, Google has somehow managed to evade the public spotlight on this one. That may be changing.
By Good / www.goodis.com
AS THE 2018 MIDTERM ELECTIONS APPROACH IN THE U.S., Google’s power to influence undecided voters remains overshadowed by Facebook’s personal data crisis.
Facebook has “taken it on the chin” for its role in the 2016 presidential election, and organizations like the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica and the Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency have dominated headlines. Yet despite having a troubling history and collecting more personal data through more products than Facebook, Google has somehow managed to evade the public spotlight on this one. That may be changing.
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recently sent Google a letter asking a series of questions about the company’s personal data protections. As one of the researchers who helped discover that search engines can substantially influence users’ voting preferences, I found the last question to be the most intriguing: “Are you aware of any foreign entities seeking to influence or interfere with U.S. elections through your platforms?” If Google’s response to this question exists, it has not been made public.
Search engine influence
SINCE 2013, I’VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN AND EXECUTION OF A LONG SERIES OF EXPERIMENTS that have demonstrated how search engines can influence undecided voters’ candidate choices through nearly undetectable manipulations to search rankings. We labeled this powerful new form of influence the search engine manipulation effect.
The way this effect works is simple: Favoritism for a particular candidate in election-related search rankings leads to people preferring that candidate. For example, a search related to an upcoming election might return results favoring candidate A higher than results favoring candidate B. That’s called partisan ranking bias. Since people tend to click on and trust highly ranked results, more people will then trust and consume the information supporting candidate A. In turn, that consumption increases their preference for candidate A.
The most important aspect of this effect, however, is that most people can’t detect the partisan ranking bias — and it’s virtually impossible to defend yourself from influences you can’t perceive. Fortunately, in three follow-up experiments, involving 3,600 participants, we demonstrated that alerting people to partisan ranking bias can help suppress the effect — though only laws or regulations actually preventing partisan ranking could eliminate the effect entirely.
Arm yourself as a citizen of Free America with the best defense you have: your Constitution. Join Free America Law Center today and enjoy voting rights on future cases, a Bill of Rights book series by Barnes Law School, a weekly podcast featuring constitutional expert Robert Barnes and exclusive invitations to future events for the Citizens of ’76 and our nation’s leading freedom fighters.
Election Manipulation: Google Preps to ‘Prevent Next Trump Situation’
Project Veritas has released an insider leak story exposing Google for biased, manipulative practices.
James O’Keefe’s whistleblower outlet posted a video of Google Responsible Innovation Head, Jen Gennai, in a June 24 report. The Google manager said that “breaking up Google” would not “prevent the next Trump situation.” She also stated that Google was training its algorithms in a different way now, that might affect elections. In the video, she bragged, “We’re training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have … would the outcome be different?”
By Corinne Weaver | June 24, 2019
MRC News Busters
James O’Keefe’s whistleblower outlet posted a video of Google Responsible Innovation Head, Jen Gennai, in a June 24 report. The Google manager said that “breaking up Google” would not “prevent the next Trump situation.” She also stated that Google was training its algorithms in a different way now, that might affect elections. In the video, she bragged, “We’re training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have … would the outcome be different?”
Gennai reiterated a sentiment that most Google executives expressed in another leaked video that was published by Breitbart. The video showed Google execs lamenting over President Donald Trump’s win in the 2016 election. In the Project Veritas video, Gennai said, “We all got screwed over in 2016. The people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again?”
The Google insider leaked another document to Project Veritas that talked about how unconscious bias in artificial intelligence design “programs people.” The document, which is supposed to be a training presentation, claimed that “fair was not the default” when it comes to algorithms.
“Machine learning fairness” is a tool used by Google to correct the inherent bias found in algorithms, according to the report. “Algorithmic unfairness” meant that there was “unjust or prejudicial treatment of people” that was based on “race, income, sexual orientation, or gender.” By implementing a policy of machine learning fairness, Google planned on correcting the unfairness found in internet users.
Gennai didn’t think much of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and her call to break up Google. She said, “I love her, but she’s very misguided. That will not make it better, it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. A small company cannot do that.”
The report also focused on content suppression that took place on YouTube. The video platform allegedly demoted content from journalist Tim Pool and commentator Dave Rubin (who are not even conservative) and replaced the algorithm recommending videos from these creators. In its place, YouTube put an algorithm that sent users to “different news outlets,” such as CNN or MSNBC.
Arm yourself as a citizen of Free America with the best defense you have: your Constitution. Join Free America Law Center today and enjoy voting rights on future cases, a Bill of Rights book series by Barnes Law School, a weekly podcast featuring constitutional expert Robert Barnes and exclusive invitations to future events for the Citizens of ’76 and our nation’s leading freedom fighters.
