Speaking of conspiracy theories

[Littlejoe]

I've started using FireFox at home instead of Google.

[oxmixmudd]

My own informal test showing a curious discrepancy between Google and other popular search engines:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31969[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]31970[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]31971[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]31972[/ATTACH]

----------

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31973[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]31974[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]31975[/ATTACH]

----------

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31976[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]31977[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]31978[/ATTACH]

I got very similar results MM. That is a bit disturbing to say the least.

The same sort of thing happens with "anti clinton"

And with the other engines, the completion kicks in after hill or clin whereas even with the entire phrase completed nothing shows on google.

If you go ahead and hit <CR>, it does bring up some results. I didn't look to see how complete they are.

Seems like something to toss to a news outlet and see if they run with it. I would expect some back peddling from the guys at google.

I'm not particularly fond of crow ...


Jim

[carpedm9587]

I got very similar results MM. That is a bit disturbing to say the least.

The same sort of thing happens with "anti clinton"

And with the other engines, the completion kicks in after hill or clin whereas even with the entire phrase completed nothing shows on google.

If you go ahead and hit <CR>, it does bring up some results. I didn't look to see how complete they are.

Seems like something to toss to a news outlet and see if they run with it. I would expect some back peddling from the guys at google.

I'm not particularly fond of crow ...

Jim

For those of you who did this - MM, Jim, Sparko, etc. - this is AWESOME! This is the kind of objectively true research that is indisputable and SHOULD be the basis of how we form our beliefs. I agree with Jim: this is disturbing. If no one else wants to send this to a news outlet, I'm willing to do so. It would be interesting to send it to Fox, Brietbart, CNN, MSNCB, ABC, and CBS, the NYT, the WSJ, and the WP and see what they do with it respectively. I'm reasonably sure the right-leaning outlets would jump on it. I wonder what the center, center-left, and left-leaning outlets would do?

[Mountain Man]

Seems like something to toss to a news outlet and see if they run with it.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/...heory-its-not/

[JonathanL]

My own informal test showing a curious discrepancy between Google and other popular search engines:

It also seems to depends on what language you are browsing Google in (and possibly also which country). When I type in the same things in google you did I sometimes get different auto-complete suggestions if I use the Swedish version of the website instead of the English language one.

"anti trump" only gives "anti trump newspaper" when I use the Swedish version. When I use Google in English it gives a similar, but slightly different autocomplete list than the one in the screenshots you posted.

"anti hillary" doesn't yield anything on either version, but "crooked hi" did give a 2 suggestions involving Hillary when I used the Swedish version.

"hillary clinton hea" gave the same results when using the English version. When I typed it in on the Swedish version I got a shorter list with only 5 items, but they were all suggestions that appeared in the list I got from the English version of the site.

I was also using the .fi version of the search engine. Whether using .fi or .com makes any difference I don't know.

[rogue06]

Prior to the 2008 election Google immediately shut down (as in not allowing them to advertise or appear in searches) a Hillary Clinton parody site saying that they do not allow such things as it may confuse voters. That of course brought forth questions of why they were allowing the same sort of parody sites that were targeting leading Republicans candidates seeking their party's nomination to advertise on Google for nearly two months.

Then of course there was this on Google just a week before the California primaries where they listed "Nazism" as the ideology of the California Republican party

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30374[/ATTACH]

They claim it wasn't their fault but it's hardly the only time

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30375[/ATTACH]

00000000000000ar1aa1b.jpg

[rogue06]

Prior to the 2008 election Google immediately shut down (as in not allowing them to advertise or appear in searches) a Hillary Clinton parody site saying that they do not allow such things as it may confuse voters. That of course brought forth questions of why they were allowing the same sort of parody sites that were targeting leading Republicans candidates seeking their party's nomination to advertise on Google for nearly two months.

Then of course there was this on Google just a week before the California primaries where they listed "Nazism" as the ideology of the California Republican party

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30374[/ATTACH]

They claim it wasn't their fault but it's hardly the only time

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30375[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32929[/ATTACH]

And the latest:

Source: EXCLUSIVE: GOOGLE EMPLOYEES DEBATED BURYING CONSERVATIVE MEDIA IN SEARCH

shocked many Google employeesGoogleeven though they demonstrably never made those claims.

Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, .



Source

© Copyright Original Source

[*The story continues at the link above*]

[JimL]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32929[/ATTACH]

Your persecution complex is showing again.

[Mountain Man]

Is it still a conspiracy theory when we have proof?

[Mountain Man]

I'm quoting the first post from this thread solely for its irony value, because as we are all well aware by now, Google's search results are, in fact, "rigged".

Google search is 'Rigged' I tell ya, 'Rigged'.

What a nutcase.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/28/tec...ged/index.html

So The Conspiracy Theorist in Chief has now come out and said that Google search is rigged because it mostly points to bad news articles about him.

This can't be legal he says, and gosh darn it, he's going to do something about it!

So now our dictator wanna be doesn't like the fact that a search engine designed around statistical parameters that algorithmically determine what are the most commonly searched for or read hits to a give random search criteria tends to pull up bad news about him. And so it 'must be rigged' and he's going to see if he can force them to 'comply' and not do that.

Hmm, discounting the fact he couldn't understand how a google search algorithm works if you gave him 10 years to try to figure it out, there is nothing going on here that relates to google. It's like saying the fact a search on Superhero movies turns up more hits are Marvel Movies than DC movies means google search is rigged.

But what IS scary is he wants to try to punish google, to 'make it illegal'. Once again showing his 'Dictator wanna be' motivations and his complete lack of understanding of what are the standards, morals, and driving philosophies that made this nation the great nation it is.

Now for the latest twist...

Source: �THE SMOKING GUN�: Google Manipulated YouTube Search Results for Abortion, Maxine Waters, David Hogg

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/...t-smoking-gun/

© Copyright Original Source

Oh, and it's not just YouTube...

Source: LEAK: �Huge Teams� Engaged in Manual Interventions on Google Search Results

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/...earch-results/

© Copyright Original Source

"Speaking of conspiracy theories" indeed.

[Roy]

Unnamed sources = fake news

Source: �THE SMOKING GUN�: Google Manipulated YouTube Search Results for Abortion, Maxine Waters, David Hogg

...The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous...

© Copyright Original Source

So this is fake news.

[Mountain Man]

So this is fake news.

Sure, you can go with that angle if you want.

Of course there's a lot more to this than just an anonymous source...

[carpedm9587]

So this is fake news.

MM cited an article that cited an anonymous source?

[One Bad Pig]

MM cited an article that cited an anonymous source?

That's his angle, yes. Of course, unlike the sources MM decries, there's actual evidence presented, not just "anonymous source claims x said y."

[Mountain Man]

YouTube admits they tampered with search results but insist they only did it because the pro-life videos were deemed "misinformation".

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/...isinformation/