A major hint appeared after the 2016 Trump election when Breitbart posted a leaked video from Google headquarters [...]]]>
A major hint appeared after the 2016 Trump election when Breitbart posted a leaked video from Google headquarters showing the leadership’s “dismayed reaction” to the electoral outcome. Multi-billionaire co-founder Sergey Brin compared Trump voters to fascists and said the election “conflicts with many of Google’s values.”
Later we heard more about how Google manipulates search results to favor left-wing results. In fact, Dr. Robert Epstein (a Democrat voter himself) warned that Big Tech can move millions of voters to the left in 2020. During a June discussion with Tucker Carlson, Dr. Epstein remarked, “. . . they can shift upwards of 15 million votes with no one knowing that they’ve been manipulated and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.”
So the leftward opinions of Big Tech can have real world effects.
Tucker Carlson continued his investigation of Big Tech in a Friday discussion with a former employee of Google, probably as a result of a recent Wall Street Journal article, reprinted on MSN.com here: Republican Engineer Fired by Google Claims ‘Bullying’.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: It’s pretty clear that Google isn’t simply just a business enterprise, though it is the most powerful business in the history of the world. It’s also an ideological organization to its core, who cares what you’re able to see and what you’re able to think and they exercise the same kind of control over their own employees.
Kevin Cernekee would know that firsthand. He spent three years at Google working as an engineer. He says he faced relentless bullying and intimidation from Google for his political views which are not liberal; one manager added him to an internal blacklist until finally, Google fired him last year. Kevin Cernekee joins us tonight.
Kevin, thanks very much for coming on. So, you believe that Google knew what your politics were, that you’re a conservative, harassed you for those views, and then ultimately dismissed you on the basis of them?
KEVIN CERNEKEE: Yes, that’s true. So basically, what happened is, when I joined Google, I saw a lot of employees being mistreated and abused and harassed for sharing conservative views or just for questioning company policies.
And I raised these issues through all the appropriate channels, I raised it through HR, I went to VPs, eventually wound up filing a charge with the Labor Board. And Google knew about this. This opened a Federal investigation from the Labor Board. I was working very closely with an investigator over there.
What happened was Google decided they did not like this investigator, and they made a lot of false accusations against me and they fired me. They said in writing that the reason they fired me was for participating in this labor investigation, and they’re basically daring the government to do anything about it.
CARLSON: I don’t think it’s legal, is it? I mean, you can’t fire someone for initiating a labor action, can you?
CERNEKEE: I wouldn’t think so. I have appealed the decision, and the Labor Board came back and basically said, “Denied.” They did not cite any case law. They didn’t really have a reason for it. It’s basically their will against anybody else’s.
CARLSON: Right. The most powerful country — company . . . country, yes, Freudian slip — in the world. How ideological is the management at Google?
CERNEKEE: It’s highly ideological. You can see bias at every level of the organization. One thing that I’ve noticed is that just handling of routine issues is plagued with bias, like they will get a report, an e-mail from a liberal reporter complaining about something and they will jump on it and they will fix the issue very, very quickly.
And contrast, one thing that I saw when I worked there was, if you do a Google search for “Crippled America,” which is Donald Trump’s book, you would get results that showed Mein Kampf instead of “Crippled America,” and I reported that. I filed a bug against it. I escalated it. I tried to run it up the chain. They took nine months to fix that bug.
They just stalled at every opportunity. They assigned it to people who no longer worked there. They made every excuse in the book to avoid taking down something that made Donald Trump look bad. And I saw a number of other incidents just like that.
CARLSON: Do you believe that Google will attempt to influence the election outcome or will attempt to try to prevent Trump from being reelected?
CERNEKEE: I do believe so. I think that’s a major threat. They have openly stated that they think 2016 was a mistake. They thought Trump should have lost in 2016. They really want Trump to lose in 2020. That’s their agenda.
They have very biased people running every level of company. And they have quite a bit of control over the political process. So, that’s something we should really worry about.
CARLSON: And yet, Congress, including Republicans, are just sitting back and acting like it’s not happening. It’s disgusting. Kevin, thank you for sounding that alarm. I appreciate it. Good to see you.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is suing Google because the unaccountable search giant blocked her ads account following the first Democrat debate of presidential candidates.
TULSI2020: In the hours following [...]]]>
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is suing Google because the unaccountable search giant blocked her ads account following the first Democrat debate of presidential candidates.
TULSI2020: In the hours following the 1st debate, while millions of Americans searched for info about Tulsi, Google suspended her search ad account w/o explanation. It is vital to our democracy that big tech companies can’t affect the outcome of elections https://t.co/n7Y7y2dQZ9
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) July 25, 2019
Usually, Silicon Valley aims its animus at conservatives, but perhaps Big Tech sees Gabbard as too free-thinking for a Democrat.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: We’ve done a lot of work on this program to expose the bias and corruption at Google which is the world’s most powerful company by far, but Google and its employees don’t just have it out for conservatives — we want to make that clear. Google is hostile to anyone who challenges the status quo since Google is the chief beneficiary of the status quo.
Congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard learned that the hard way just after the first presidential debate where Gabbard was the single most searched Democratic candidate, Google blocked her from being able to buy new ads.
Now she’s become the first presidential candidate to sue Google: she’s accused them of censoring her message. We are happy to have Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard join us tonight.
Congresswoman, thanks very much for coming on. Tell us the point of this suit.
REP. TULSI GABBARD: Here’s the bottom line: this is really about the unchecked power that these big tech monopolies have over our public discourse, and how this is a real threat to our freedom of speech and to our fair elections.
So this really isn’t about me; it’s about taking action on behalf of the American people because we’ve got to understand here that if Google can do this to me as a sitting member of Congress running for the highest office in the land, that means they can do this to any candidate running for any office anywhere in this country and frankly to any person in this country.
And that’s why it’s so important that whether you’re a progressive or conservative, whether you consider yourself on the left or the right, we all have to stand united to protect our freedom of speech. Because look, today it’s me, tomorrow it could be you or someone else.
CARLSON: Yes that’s exactly right. God bless you by the way. Why are you the only candidate who’s saying this?
GABBARD: I can’t explain that, Tucker, but I do know how important it is that we protect our freedoms in this country. It’s something I think that people take for granted unless they’re the ones under attack.
These freedoms are enshrined in our Constitution. I love our country I love our people this is why I’m standing up and fighting for these freedoms even when these freedoms allow those who say things I may disagree with to have that freedom to do so.
As a soldier these are the principles that I stand up for that even though you and I may disagree on things I’m willing to give my life for your freedom to do so
CARLSON: So you filed this lawsuit, and god bless you for doing that. What should lawmakers in the Congress do to rein in this tech this dangerous tech monopoly called Google?
GABBARD: Washington needs to act, there’s no question about it because we’re talking about Google, Facebook, Twitter — these are big tech monopolies that have this unchecked power to influence our public discourse, to influence what kind of information people are seeing. Google is in control of 88 percent of all internet searches in the United States and I believe it’s 92 percent of all internet searches in the world.
So Google is controlling when you type into that Google search box what pops up the information that you see, so it’s important that Congress takes action because right now this is unchecked — they’ve got their secret algorithms, they can control the information that we see, they can control what pops up in our Facebook feeds and they can censor voices that they disagree with.
Google has spoken openly about how they have shut out those who have not broken any of their Terms of Use, so this is really what’s at stake herem and it’s important that Congress takes action to provide this oversight and accountability and ultimately to break up these big tech monopolies.
CARLSON: So in the thirty seconds we have remaining, are you going to bring this up in the debates this week?
GABBARD: I look forward to doing so this is such an important issue that is integral to every single one of our freedoms that we cherish and that we all must stand up and protect.
CARLSON: It’s so important — I spoke to a right-winger today who I think disagrees with you on virtually everything and on the basis of this alone sent you money today because it is that important.
GABBARD: This is America and this is what we’re talking about here — this freedom. Thank you so much, Tucker.
Dr. Epstein now believes that left-wing Big Tech can nudge 15 million to the Democrats in 2020 by slanting search results, with nobody aware that it is happening. Yet Republicans are asleep at the switch while Silicon Valley enemies plot GOP doom and the destruction of representative government.
Big Tech’s secret propaganda is a serious threat to our freedoms continuing, but there is little attention from concerned parties. That needs to change.
Spare audio:
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Back in America, a tech story that might seem insignificant, but is not. In fact, it may determine what happens in the next presidential election; it very well may. A Google whistleblower has come forward to describe his company’s plans to remake the American political landscape. Google, of course, is the most powerful company in the world.
So when an anonymous whistleblower comes forward, in this case, telling Project Veritas that Google is using internal algorithms to shape what Americans see online, and by extension, what they think, you better take it seriously:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fairness is a dog whistle, it does not mean what you think that it means and you have to apply doublethink in order to understand what they’re really saying.
What they’re really saying about fairness is that they have to manipulate their search results, so it gives them the political agenda that they want, and so they have to re-bias their algorithms so that they can get their agenda across.
CARLSON: That’s the definition of propaganda, again, being perpetuated by the single most powerful company in the history of the world.
This is not surprising to viewers of this show, James Damore was fired for Google for his political views, his totally conventional, moderate political views and then came on this show to describe the culture at Google. Watch this:
JAMES DAMORE: There are definitely some political biases within Google that I was trying to shed light on in the document, and that they affect many parts of the business and for example, who they do business with, and what type of content they create, and I really think that those political biases need to be addressed.
CARLSON: It’s not just whistleblowers — excuse me, hidden camera footage obtained by Project Veritas shows a conversation with a woman called Jen Gennai. Her Google title is Head of Responsible Innovations in the Global Affairs Department.
In that video, Gennai says that Google is working specifically on products to make certain that Donald Trump does not win another election. Quote, “We’re also training our algorithms like if 2016 happened again … would the outcome be different? People were not putting that line in the sand … that they were not saying that what’s fair and what’s equitable, so we’re like, well, we’re a big company, we’re going to say it.”
In other words, we’re going to try and affect the outcome of the 2020 presidential campaign. Gennai goes on to blast Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to break Google up into two companies. Why? Check out this reasoning, quote, “All these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. It’s like a small company cannot do that.”
So using a company’s dominance on the internet to sway the outcome of an election. That’s their plan. There should be a term for what Gennai is describing. It turns out there is a term, it’s a term you’ve heard constantly from talking heads on television for more than two years. It’s called hacking an election. Google wants to hack our election. They’re saying that out loud.
As we’ve been told over and over again by CNN and the Washington Post and the New York Times and all the other propagandists. Hacking an election is very bad; at minimum it warrants a multiyear investigation by law enforcement agencies. And yet, it’s happening now.
The Washington establishment has said they want to prevent election interference. But of course, that’s a lie. They just want to make sure they control the elections. That’s their only goal. That’s why they’re not attacking the real source of election interference, which is Silicon Valley.
Google, Facebook and their ilk, they have far more political power than Russia ever has or ever will have. No serious person doubts that.
But the people in charge of our country don’t care about any of that. Because when Google meddles in an election, Democrats benefit.
By the way, if you want to find that video, you can’t access it on YouTube. Google took it down. That’s not surprising. You can already be tossed off of YouTube and Facebook if you decide they’re using speech they don’t, like they’ll accuse you of hate speech, whatever that means.
Now they can toss you off their sites just for putting up videos that make you look bad. They probably won’t be banning any DNC videos anytime soon, you can be certain of that.
Meanwhile, this week, Ravelry, a knitting social networking website with eight million members banned all explicit support for Donald Trump and only for Donald Trump, and they got away with it. And because they have gotten away with it, other platforms almost certainly will do the same thing.
All of this is going on flagrantly in public, but most Republicans haven’t even responded to it. They haven’t reacted at all.
As soon as the 2016 election was over, the press and Big Tech openly began plotting on how to control the narrative in 2020, which is another way of saying control the election outcome in 2020, and using the scapegoat of fake news as an excuse to control the public discourse.
Republicans were in charge of Congress at the time; they did nothing. The White House commands a vast regulatory apparatus. They’ve sat motionless and done nothing. The only Republican is seems even interested at all in the subject and keeping Big Tech in check at all is new senator Josh Hawley, he just introduced a bill that would force tech companies to act as genuinely open platforms in order to receive valuable regulatory benefits. That’s the deal. They’re violating the deal, nobody else seems to care.
Passing Hawley’s bill does not seem to be a conservative priority, though, no one in Congress is talking about it. That’s a big mistake.
Successful political parties look out for their supporters and for the public at large and protect them from harm. Republicans, meanwhile, are sitting in a stupefied fog of libertarianism, doing nothing while their ideas are suppressed, and their supporters are silenced.
One day, they’ll look up and find they have no supporters at all; who will be the blame for that? Only themselves.
Dr. Robert Epstein is not a Republican, but he is the preeminent researcher into the subject. He’s a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, and he is again, the world’s great expert on the effect of the tech companies on political discourse. He joins us today. Dr. Epstein, thank you very much for coming on.
DR. ROBERT EPSTEIN: Always a pleasure.
CARLSON: Seeing this video tape, reading the quotes from this Google executive, does this confirm what you’ve said in the past? Are you surprised by this? What’s your response?
EPSTEIN: I’m not surprised, in the least. It confirms in glowing terms, or in very ugly terms, if you want to look at it that way, that Google not only has the power to shift opinions and votes on a massive scale, but they exercise this power and this is what I measure in my research.
So I can tell you fairly precisely how many votes they can shift; I can tell you fairly precisely how many votes they shifted in 2018.
CARLSON: So why is that not hacking an election?
EPSTEIN: Well, it’s not hacking an election right now because Google and similar companies like Facebook are completely unregulated in the United States, so they can do whatever they please.
And if they all work together in 2020 to support the same presidential candidate, which is very likely, and probably it’ll be a candidate that I support, by the way, they can shift upwards of 15 million votes with no one knowing that they’ve been manipulated and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.
CARLSON: So that’s it. There’s no election at that point. Our democracy is not real if that’s allowed to happen, correct?
EPSTEIN: Well, democracy becomes an illusion. Now, there are actions one can take. I’ve set up so far, the only two big monitoring systems that anyone has built to actually look over people’s shoulder as they’re doing election related online activities, and to aggregate that information and see what they are being shown by these big companies.
Now in 2020, I’m actually trying right now to raise funds to build a large scale monitoring system to keep an eye on these companies and to catch them in the act, literally catch them, when they are manipulating votes and opinions. And in my opinion, that’s the only way we can stop them. There are no laws in place that can stop them at the moment.
CARLSON: Calling attention to it might be the first step and you’ve done more than anyone to do that. Dr. Epstein, thank you very much.
EPSTEIN: My pleasure.
Search engine researcher Dr. Robert Epstein has been continuing his investigation into the nefarious ways [...]]]>
Search engine researcher Dr. Robert Epstein has been continuing his investigation into the nefarious ways that Google manipulates search results to affect opinion and therefore votes in favor of the Democrats. What he has found is a skewing to show conservative candidates and ideas more negatively, with liberals getting positive search results. The degree of effect on voting is genuinely shocking because it changes election results.
There are several earlier posts on this blog about Dr. Epstein’s investigation of tech censorship, including interviews with Tucker Carlson (shown below).
Breitbart news provided an update to the ongoing investigation on Friday:
Research: Google Search Bias Flipped Seats for Democrats in Midterms, By Allum Bokhari, March 22, 2019
New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country.
The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge.
The research follows a previous study conducted in 2016 which showed that biased Google results pushed votes to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Democrats and Google executives have disputed these findings. . .
The flipping of conservative Orange County to be completely Democrat in the 2016 Congress was quite suspicious, even given the demographic change from immigration. There is also the issue of so-called “ballot harvesting” — legal only in California — where third parties, such as Democrat operatives, can deliver votes from homes to the registrar. What a convenient way to disappear Republican votes — very clever, Sacramento!
Below is a 36-minute interview with Dr. Epstein from a few days ago. In it, you will learn that Google brand home thermostats include microphones which allow the company to eavesdrop (!), and that the search expert uses StartPage for his own browsing.
Here’s a shorter interview, 17 minutes in length, with Glenn Beck from March 22 that explains basic issues, beginning with what Epstein does:
ROBERT EPSTEIN: (starting 2:45) There’s two different things I do, and unfortunately the LA Times just totally got this wrong. One is for more than six years I’ve been doing randomized controlled scientific studies showing the new power that companies like Google and Facebook have to shift opinions and votes without people knowing. And that’s very very rigorous research published in top scientific journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
LA Times — did they even mention that? No.
And could anyone possibly find fault with that work? No, you can’t publish in those journals if your work is faulty.
Now the second thing that I’ve been doing, trying more quietly, is trying to learn how to build monitoring systems. These companies surveil us 24 hours a day. I’m the only person so far in the world who’s developed two monitoring systems for surveilling them. In other words, for figuring out what they’re showing people especially in the days leading up to elections and I did it in 2016. That got reported by the Washington Post, and I’ve done it again.
I did it again in 2018. That story just broke this morning and I am making progress in learning how to do this kind of monitoring and learning how to detect bias in the content that these companies are showing people. And once again, I caught Google not being readö (?), but I caught Google with their digital pants down and you know, what’s there they should be embarrassed about because I found very clear and strong liberal bias in content that they were showing people in the days leading up to the election. And that was enough if they were doing that nationwide, which I didn’t monitor the whole country, but if they had been doing what I found nationwide, that would have shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes to Democrats in across multiple races with no one having the slightest idea that they have been influenced in this way.
That’s why this is a very very dangerous kind of influence, that’s why we also need monitoring systems to be running on a large scale, and those are the two things I do — the scientific stuff and then developing monitoring systems.
The rest is worth a listen also, with its discussion of the great power of secret persuasion to worm its way into our beliefs and freedoms.
Spare audio:
]]>As Dr. Epstein noted about the search engine [...]]]>
As Dr. Epstein noted about the search engine Google from his research, “It’s frightening to me that this company with very strong political leanings has the power to shift millions of votes and shift opinions on a massive scale without people knowing that they are doing it and without being accountable to the public.”
But while the search shenanigans continue, as Epstein reports, “Google has been extremely good at keeping its secrets for almost 20 years, but in the last few months that has changed, and there have been quite a number of leaks, and we have seen a number of internal discussions there.”
So the Google company’s Stalinesque group-think may be breaking down somewhat under criticism from the public.
In addition, there may be some hope for action against Big Tech’s extreme influence on opinion from abroad. Epstein noted: “The Europeans see these companies as American, and they have been much tougher on them. I think we are going to see some pretty drastic actions taken against these companies by the E.U. in the next few years, and that could change their ability to operate worldwide.”
]]>During an August appearance with Tucker, Dr. Epstein remarked, “So I have an article coming out very soon about ten different ways that these [...]]]>
During an August appearance with Tucker, Dr. Epstein remarked, “So I have an article coming out very soon about ten different ways that these big tech companies can shift millions of votes in November; in fact I calculate this November they’ll be able to shift upwards of 12 million votes just in the midterm elections.”
He also calls Google a “surveillance tool” that should be avoided.
Dr. Epstein recommends the upcoming film “The Creepy Line” in which he appears.
He appeared on the September 12 edition of Breitbart News radio, where a topic was the recently leaked video of Google headquarters bemoaning the Trump election in 2016. He noted that many companies have political leanings, but none have “the power that Google has to shift the thinking, the opinions, the values, the attitudes, the voting preferences, the purchases of more than two billion people around the world without people knowing that they are doing it — that’s the difference.”
His USA Today opinion piece is particularly timely with the fall election coming up:
]]>Not just conservatives: Google and Big Tech can shift millions of votes in any direction, By Robert Epstein, USA Today, September 13, 2018
Donald Trump is more right than he knows. My research suggests Google and Big Tech can manipulate voters in ways that threaten democracy and autonomy.
I am not a Trump supporter. I’m not even a conservative. But I love America and democracy, and I defend truth when I see it, and President Donald Trump is not only justified in expressing misgivings about Google and other tech companies — he seems to have no idea just how big a threat Google-and-the-Gang pose to both democracy and human autonomy.
In a forthcoming article in Fast Company, I have detailed 10 different methods Big Tech companies can use to shift millions of votes in the midterm elections with no one knowing they’re doing so and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace — upwards of 12 million votes, by my calculations. These powerful new means of manipulation make fake news stories and targeted ads, sources of influence that are both competitive and visible, look like kid stuff.
I’ve been a research scientist for nearly 40 years, and for more than five years now, I’ve been discovering, studying and quantifying new methods of influence that the internet has made possible. Two of these methods — the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME, pronounced “seem”) and the Search Suggestion Effect (SSE) — are among the most powerful types of influence ever discovered in the behavioral sciences.
Google search results affect elections
My randomized, controlled and peer-reviewed research on SEME shows that when one candidate is favored in search results, that can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more — up to 80 percent in some demographic groups. My new research on SSE suggests that (a) Google is manipulating opinions from the very first character people type into the Google search bar, and (b) by manipulating search suggestions (those phrases they flash at you while you’re typing your search term), Google can turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into an astonishing 90/10 split.
Those boxes they often show you at the top of the results page, the so-called “featured snippets,” also shift votes and opinions, possibly boosting the impact of SEME by between 10 and 30 percent.
Is there evidence of actual favoritism in Google’s search engine? Well, the European Union certainly thinks so, having fined Google $2.7 billion last year for having biased search results. In the months leading up to the 2016 election here in the U.S., I led a team that used objective methods to preserve 13,207 online election-related searches and the 98,044 web pages to which the search results linked. These data showed that Google’s search results favored Hillary Clinton (whom I supported) in all 10 positions on the first page of search results — enough, perhaps, to have shifted two or three million votes in her direction over time.
Was this just, as Google likes to claim, an “organic” phenomenon — you know, something Google’s algorithm did all by itself based on user preferences? (What an idiotic claim. I mean, who wrote the algorithm that acts on those preferences?) Maybe — except that I found pro-Clinton favoritism in searches originating in red states, not just in blue states.
As for Google’s vacuous denials about having political preferences — defended uncritically in recent days by reporters like CNN’s Hadas Gold — let’s review: Google’s Eric Schmidt not only helped supervise Obama’s tech teams in 2008 and 2012, he also offered to supervise Hillary Clinton’s entire tech operation and bankrolled a highly secretive tech operation, The Groundwork, to assist her campaign. Clinton’s Chief Technology Officer was Stephanie Hannon, a former Google executive, and more than 95 percent of the company’s political donations have gone to Democratic candidates in recent elections.
That said, the problem is not about hurting conservatives; it’s much bigger than that. Google has also been accused of suppressing socialists and progressive groups. And whatever the company’s political preferences are today, they could change tomorrow, both in the U.S. and other countries. Democracy itself is at stake here.
Google’s ability to shift votes is unparalleled
There’s nothing wrong with a company supporting one candidate or party — Microsoft was one of Clinton’s biggest donors, after all — but no company in the history of the world has had the ability to shift votes and opinions to the extent and on the scale that Google has. When there are signs that Google is supporting one candidate or cause, we need to pay close attention to what it is showing people. (Continues)