Google Deliberately Alter Search Results for Political Purposes?

[JoeKitchen]

So this is a theory that has been going around for a while now and up until recently I considered it nothing more then a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.  I was of the opinion of Peter Theil, that this was really just an algorithm problem more then anything else even though it looked bad. 

But then I saw this, YouTube may have suppressed videos of Tulsi Gabbard following Clinton spat

Steven Crowder, who is a conservative comedian, did a google search the day after HRC had her little spat with Gabbard on the 18th.  He did a normal Google search from the USA on the subject and the only videos that came up where of HRC arguments on her points.  No campaign videos from Gabbard were shown in the results.  He then did a search on a VPN making it look like the search was being conducted in Spain, and both HRC's and Gabbard's videos came up. 

Two days later, on the 20th and after the spat died down, he did the same two searches and results mirrored each other. 

Makes you kind of wonder. 

I know there is a lot more needed to prove this result.  However, considering Antifa and the far left are perfectly okay with throwing live explosives into crowds they are protesting, I can't say this would be outside the possible actions of any far leftists working at Google. 

[Alan Klein]

Joe, It could be that more liberals use Google in certain searches. I believe Google and others tend to give more viewing weight to subsequent searches as the algorithms follow how many previous hits were done.  So let's say more people clicked on Hillary.  Well, she would be on the first page of links putting Gabbard further down.  Of course this becomes self perpetuating.  Now I'm only guessing and hoping that Google really doesn't put their finger on the scale.  But who knows?  It's like bias in the N Times.  A negative story about TRump is put on page one above the paper's fold.  A good story is buried on pg 47.  Of course the Times will claim both stories were printed. 

Of course how headlines and photo captions are written can change the entire meaning and effect. "Trump Pulls Out of Syria Abandoning the Kurds Without American Protection".  Or, "Trump Pulls American Troops Out of Syria Ending Further US Deaths Defending the Kurds". Both tell the truth. But which one makes you feel better about Trump?  Worse?  The meanings are different.  It's all in the interpretation.  It can stir hearts and opinions in different directions.  This is what Fake News is all about.  Not about lies.  About false imaging.

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, It could be that more liberals use Google in certain searches. I believe Google and others tend to give more viewing weight to subsequent searches as the algorithms follow how many previous hits were done.  So let's say more people clicked on Hillary.  Well, she would be on the first page of links putting Gabbard further down.  Of course this becomes self perpetuating.  Now I'm only guessing and hoping that Google really doesn't put their finger on the scale.  But who knows?  It's like bias in the N Times.  A negative story about TRump is put on page one above the paper's fold.  A good story is buried on pg 47.  Of course the Times will claim both stories were printed. 

Of course how headlines and photo captions are written can change the entire meaning and effect. "Trump Pulls Out of Syria Abandoning the Kurds Without American Protection".  Or, "Trump Pulls American Troops Out of Syria Ending Further US Deaths Defending the Kurds". Both tell the truth. But which one makes you feel better about Trump?  Worse?  The meanings are different.  It's all in the interpretation.  It can stir hearts and opinions in different directions.  This is what Fake News is all about.  Not about lies.  About false imaging.

I tend to agree with you here, however it still looks bad for Google and I doubt it will die down anytime soon. 

Both sides in congress want to break these companies up, and this is just fuel for the fire. 

[Alan Klein]

I tend to agree with you here, however it still looks bad for Google and I doubt it will die down anytime soon. 

Both sides in congress want to break these companies up, and this is just fuel for the fire. 

I agree with you.  That's why Google Facebook and other similar companies are trying to be receptive to Congress's complaints.  FAcebook seems to be taking the high road while Zuckerberg is trying to "yes" Congress.  What they're concerned about is being accused of a monopoly and broken up.  The fact they're granted certain right of bandwidth by the government, gives COngress certain leeway to regulate them short of a breakup.  Of course, Congress is going to run into their resistance in the courts as a limitation of the 1st Amendment right of free speech.  It's going to be interesting to see what SCOTUS rules.

This reminds me of when Hollywood felt threatened when Congress told them to stop putting porn in the movies.  To avoid legislation that regulated it, they voluntarily setting up the Ratings system on their own.  That quieted the whole issue.  Facebook and Google would be wise to look to how that saved the day for Hollywood and apply similar constraints on themselves.  My own instinct is I don't want government interfering with free speech. On the other hand, these companies have huge power to influence politics, war, elections, etc.  A balance might be needed.