Speaking of conspiracy theories

[Mountain Man]

I'm still suspicious that it might not just be user of Google gaming the system, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google themselves had been putting a thumb on the scale.

I suspect it's a combination of things, from users rigging results and Google only stepping in to prevent manipulation for one group but not another, to Google themselves directly adjusting their own search algorithms to produce "correct" results.

[oxmixmudd]

I suspect it's a combination of things, from users rigging results and Google only stepping in to prevent manipulation for one group but not another, to Google themselves directly adjusting their own search algorithms to produce "correct" results.

And the conspiracy theories go on and on. The last bit is funny. It's not that its impossible. It's just typical paranoia of a conspiracy theorist. It is not at all unlike what we see on the Global Warming side. Scientists make adjustments to their processing of the data based on sound theoretical results, and if the adjustment results in a stronger warming trend, the conspiracy folks claim they are all in cahoots manipulating the data to make it look worse than it is.

I am relatively familiar with some of the theory behind how google does what it does. It's all about the math and the science. Could they play political games? Yes. But searches not coming out like someone thinks it 'should' is NOT by any stretch unqualified evidence of such activity.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

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]

There is this other thing. It's called 'hacking'. You see, there are these people of all political persuasions that like to go and hack websites, changing their content. Google has been, is, and likely always will be a target of such hacks, and so far no-one has come up with a fool-proof way of stopping them.

I would tend to think that a much more likely explanation than that google would as an organization shoot itself in the foot with such childish pranks.

Another more likely possibility (but less likely than a hacker) is that Google employs over 85,000 people. The results in question could imply a conspiracy (or 'joke'*) of 1.


Jim


*What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Trump can claim his appeal to the Russians was a 'joke', then a google employee altering a website can claim it was a 'joke' as well.

[carpedm9587]

I noticed during the 2015 presidential campaign that stories favorable to Trump and critical of Hillary were becoming increasingly hard to find on Google, not to mention older stories critical of liberal policies and ideologies in general had all but disappeared from the search engine. That's when I started using Duck Duck Go.

Or there is a possible alternative explanation. Google's algorithm factors in your clicks as well as the Internet. So if you regularly clicked on stories favorable to Hillary, or stories denigrating Trump, the subsequent searches would factor that in. This is especially true of their news feed. It is why I make sure to click widely across the political spectrum, and avoid a single media source.

I ran an experiment for a week, and only clicked on Brietbart articles. By the end of the week, I had a solid diet of right-leaning news outlets in my feed. The following week I only clicked on Mother Jones links (had to go WAY down to find them at first). By the end of the week, my feed was pretty solidly filled with left-leaning sources.

The worst thing about google, IMO, is that they encourage people to stay in their bubbles.

[Mountain Man]

Or there is a possible alternative explanation. Google's algorithm factors in your clicks as well as the Internet. So if you regularly clicked on stories favorable to Hillary, or stories denigrating Trump, the subsequent searches would factor that in. This is especially true of their news feed. It is why I make sure to click widely across the political spectrum, and avoid a single media source.

I ran an experiment for a week, and only clicked on Brietbart articles. By the end of the week, I had a solid diet of right-leaning news outlets in my feed. The following week I only clicked on Mother Jones links (had to go WAY down to find them at first). By the end of the week, my feed was pretty solidly filled with left-leaning sources.

The worst thing about google, IMO, is that they encourage people to stay in their bubbles.

You're describing the exact opposite of my experience.

[Mountain Man]

And the conspiracy theories go on and on. The last bit is funny. It's not that its impossible. It's just typical paranoia of a conspiracy theorist. It is not at all unlike what we see on the Global Warming side. Scientists make adjustments to their processing of the data based on sound theoretical results, and if the adjustment results in a stronger warming trend, the conspiracy folks claim they are all in cahoots manipulating the data to make it look worse than it is.

I am relatively familiar with some of the theory behind how google does what it does. It's all about the math and the science. Could they play political games? Yes. But searches not coming out like someone thinks it 'should' is NOT by any stretch unqualified evidence of such activity.

Jim

Did you really gloss over the fact that Google has been busted on multiple occasions rigging their own results for financial gain? What makes you think they wouldn't do the same for political gain, especially when they were one of the most active lobbyists in Obama's White House?

[carpedm9587]

You're describing the exact opposite of my experience.

So you're saying you only (or mostly) clicked on pro-Trump and anti-Hillary links and still got "anti-Trump" and "pro-Hillary" links?

[oxmixmudd]

Did you really gloss over the fact that Google has been busted on multiple occasions rigging their own results for financial gain? What makes you think they wouldn't do the same for political gain, especially when they were one of the most active lobbyists in Obama's White House?

That specific post was addressing the two examples rogue posted that are most likely hacks of the affected websites.

Jim

[Terraceth]

And the conspiracy theories go on and on. The last bit is funny. It's not that its impossible. It's just typical paranoia of a conspiracy theorist. It is not at all unlike what we see on the Global Warming side. Scientists make adjustments to their processing of the data based on sound theoretical results, and if the adjustment results in a stronger warming trend, the conspiracy folks claim they are all in cahoots manipulating the data to make it look worse than it is.

I am relatively familiar with some of the theory behind how google does what it does. It's all about the math and the science. Could they play political games? Yes. But searches not coming out like someone thinks it 'should' is NOT by any stretch unqualified evidence of such activity.

Jim

I'm confused as to how speculation that Google could be adjusting their search algorithms is particularly paranoid activity. It seems almost a given.

While an example on YouTube rather than Google (but Google owns YouTube), I can't think of any other plausible explanation for why the channel LeafyIsHere had such a dramatic crash in viewership. His channel was experiencing explosive growth, and then very abruptly started losing it. Plenty of channels lose popularity over time, but going from 121.07 million views in July to 89.25 million in August, and then more dramatic declines occurring afterwards? (information taken from Socialblade) There wasn't a real change in content and as far as I can tell no new controversy happened at that time, at least not anything beyond what he normally had. The only explanation for this I can find plausible is that YouTube, worried about him becoming a big name on the site with his content (which was of the controversial variety), switched their algorithm somehow to make him show up a lot less and thereby shut down his growth.

Hey, they're a private company. They can favor whoever the heck they want in their searches. But I have trouble believing they don't, to at least some extent, have it set up to favor certain things over others, including politics. I expect it's a subtle adjustment rather than a major one like some seem to believe, though.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm confused as to how speculation that Google could be adjusting their search algorithms is particularly paranoid activity. It seems almost a given.

While an example on YouTube rather than Google (but Google owns YouTube), I can't think of any other plausible explanation for why the channel LeafyIsHere had such a dramatic crash in viewership. His channel was experiencing explosive growth, and then very abruptly started losing it. Plenty of channels lose popularity over time, but going from 121.07 million views in July to 89.25 million in August, and then more dramatic declines occurring afterwards? (information taken from Socialblade) There wasn't a real change in content and as far as I can tell no new controversy happened at that time, at least not anything beyond what he normally had. The only explanation for this I can find plausible is that YouTube, worried about him becoming a big name on the site with his content (which was of the controversial variety), switched their algorithm somehow to make him show up a lot less and thereby shut down his growth.

Hey, they're a private company. They can favor whoever the heck they want in their searches. But I have trouble believing they don't, to at least some extent, have it set up to favor certain things over others, including politics. I expect it's a subtle adjustment rather than a major one like some seem to believe, though.

Of course they adjust them. Do they adjust them to try to control politics is the accusation. And it is in this case being characterized by the Donald as "Google is purposefully making only bad stories about ME come up in its search". Which is absurd. There are more stories about how bad trump is because ... well because Trump is bad. But Donald thinks this should be illegal and is trying to send the law after them.

And of course, the reason I'm putting this out there is that I'm being accused of being a conspiracy theorist because I'm convinced by some rather obvious tells Trump is in bed with the Russians. While all the while Donald Trump and friends are palling around with QAnon and the 'Deep State' folks, and now he's thinking google is out to get him.

It's just all hilarious from my perspective that the Trump supporters think its the 'other side' that is all hopped up on 'conspiracy theories', given their attachment to the Conspiracy Theorist in Chief.


Jim

[rogue06]

That specific post was addressing the two examples rogue posted that are most likely hacks of the affected websites.

Jim

Goggle blamed a hack of Wikipedia for the first but IIRC other search engines didn't seem to have "Nazism" in their profiles they got from Wiki and Google was strangely silent after the second incident. It appears more likely that someone at Google was responsible.

[oxmixmudd]

Goggle blamed a hack of Wikipedia for the first but IIRC other search engines didn't seem to have "Nazism" in their profiles they got from Wiki and Google was strangely silent after the second incident. It appears more likely that someone at Google was responsible.

Perhaps so. If Google is anything like my employers, it is most likely a former Google employee ...


Jim

[carpedm9587]

I'm confused as to how speculation that Google could be adjusting their search algorithms is particularly paranoid activity. It seems almost a given.

While an example on YouTube rather than Google (but Google owns YouTube), I can't think of any other plausible explanation for why the channel LeafyIsHere had such a dramatic crash in viewership. His channel was experiencing explosive growth, and then very abruptly started losing it. Plenty of channels lose popularity over time, but going from 121.07 million views in July to 89.25 million in August, and then more dramatic declines occurring afterwards? (information taken from Socialblade) There wasn't a real change in content and as far as I can tell no new controversy happened at that time, at least not anything beyond what he normally had. The only explanation for this I can find plausible is that YouTube, worried about him becoming a big name on the site with his content (which was of the controversial variety), switched their algorithm somehow to make him show up a lot less and thereby shut down his growth.

Hey, they're a private company. They can favor whoever the heck they want in their searches. But I have trouble believing they don't, to at least some extent, have it set up to favor certain things over others, including politics. I expect it's a subtle adjustment rather than a major one like some seem to believe, though.

Or the fickle masses moved on...

MySpace...
The Numa Numa Guy
AYO & TEo with "Rolex"
Jidenna and "Classic Man"
Chistopher Cross

History is littered with one-hit wonders, some lasted a bit and then faded, others flashed and disappeared quickly. I'm not sure you can use one such channel as proof that google/youtube is discriminating.

[One Bad Pig]

Perhaps so. If Google is anything like my employers, it is most likely a former Google employee ...


Jim

Would your employer fire you for daring to express a non-liberal opinion?

[oxmixmudd]

Would your employer fire you for daring to express a non-liberal opinion?

I have no clue what you are trying to imply. I work as a computer scientist. Anywhere I have worked, an employee messing with a customer or some element or our product that could affect our business or reputation with our customers like what we saw in Rogues images would be given an immediate and one way ticket to the unemployment line.

Jim

ETA: ah, you probably refer to this:

Damore was sacked from Google after he circulated a 10-page memo that cited alleged differences in the way men and women approach their work as evidence that current models for promoting diversity in the business are not functioning well.

Yeah, I thought that firing him was a bit extreme. But a 10 page memo pushing what will be viewed by many as (and may well be) bigoted ideas about men and women? That is just stupid even if Google's reaction was over the top.