A Sea Of Red

Testimony by Dr. Robert Epstein (democrat) before the Senate committee with focus on Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4808451/ ... -testimony

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4808552/ ... -elections

Search engine result manipulation isn’t anything new. When content is provided via algorithms, people learn how to ensure that their content is given priority by learning how the algorithms work. What companies who provide platforms for content delivery are starting to do is adjust their algorithms and provide more curation of content.

Obviously people start to question what kind of bias might be built into an algorithm or the curation of content. This isn’t a bad question to ask, but, in the end, nearly all the responsibility lands on the part of the user, not the content provider.

These days, for example, kids are taught discernment and critical thinking as it applies to information they find on the internet. This isn’t a skill that older generations were taught. So this becomes a bigger issue for those who believe a lot of what they find on the internet and less of an issue for those who’ve grown to question nearly everything they find on the internet.

The reality is that obviously the spread of information on the internet impacts our lives. This isn’t isolated to elections. It impacts how we develop our worldview, etc. How do we manage that? We shouldn’t believe everything that shows up in a Google search or a Facebook feed. We should each do more research before coming to a conclusion. Even if Google or Facebook results weren’t being curated, they would still be manipulated, which is why the burden really falls on the user to demonstrate critical thinking skills.

Yacht Rock wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2019, 12:42 pm Search engine result manipulation isn’t anything new. When content is provided via algorithms, people learn how to ensure that their content is given priority by learning how the algorithms work. What companies who provide platforms for content delivery are starting to do is adjust their algorithms and provide more curation of content.

Obviously people start to question what kind of bias might be built into an algorithm or the curation of content. This isn’t a bad question to ask, but, in the end, nearly all the responsibility lands on the part of the user, not the content provider.

These days, for example, kids are taught discernment and critical thinking as it applies to information they find on the internet. This isn’t a skill that older generations were taught. So this becomes a bigger issue for those who believe a lot of what they find on the internet and less of an issue for those who’ve grown to question nearly everything they find on the internet.

The reality is that obviously the spread of information on the internet impacts our lives. This isn’t isolated to elections. It impacts how we develop our worldview, etc. How do we manage that? We shouldn’t believe everything that shows up in a Google search or a Facebook feed. We should each do more research before coming to a conclusion. Even if Google or Facebook results weren’t being curated, they would still be manipulated, which is why the burden really falls on the user to demonstrate critical thinking skills.

And in the meantime Pichai Sundararajan picks our leaders

Yeah...that's not really how it works. Even if the CEO of Google chose to do nothing, would you trust everything that came up in a Google search result? Do you believe the results were untainted? (hint, those results were gamed even if Google does nothing). They could be gamed by people, businesses, foreign actors, etc.

It's like the news. If you get it from one outlet, you're getting curated news that tries to tell you what to think. The best combatant against that is to understand there is bias in the sharing of information, seek out multiple outlets from a multitude of perspectives, and recognize that just because something is "published" doesn't make it a fact.

Yacht Rock wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2019, 1:57 pm Yeah...that's not really how it works. Even if the CEO of Google chose to do nothing, would you trust everything that came up in a Google search result? Do you believe the results were untainted? (hint, those results were gamed even if Google does nothing). They could be gamed by people, businesses, foreign actors, etc.

It's like the news. If you get it from one outlet, you're getting curated news that tries to tell you what to think. The best combatant against that is to understand there is bias in the sharing of information, seek out multiple outlets from a multitude of perspectives, and recognize that just because something is "published" doesn't make it a fact.

Your are rightly putting the burden of responsibility on the individual. Unfortunately an overwhelming number of people (across all ages, political and or religious persuasions) today refuse to bear that responsibility and believe what ever comes across their screen that the person they like the most says. How do we change that? I'm not sure we can.

flamehunter wrote:

Yacht Rock wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2019, 1:57 pm Yeah...that's not really how it works. Even if the CEO of Google chose to do nothing, would you trust everything that came up in a Google search result? Do you believe the results were untainted? (hint, those results were gamed even if Google does nothing). They could be gamed by people, businesses, foreign actors, etc.

It's like the news. If you get it from one outlet, you're getting curated news that tries to tell you what to think. The best combatant against that is to understand there is bias in the sharing of information, seek out multiple outlets from a multitude of perspectives, and recognize that just because something is "published" doesn't make it a fact.

Your are rightly putting the burden of responsibility on the individual. Unfortunately an overwhelming number of people (across all ages, political and or religious persuasions) today refuse to bear that responsibility and believe what ever comes across their screen that the person they like the most says. How do we change that? I'm not sure we can.

Well, the studies I've seen, (and my personal experience) indicate that there are some differences among age groups. One study I read, for instance, indicated that Facebook users over the age of 65 are more likely to share fake news stories. I've seen this personally with friends and family. When I typically ask them about it, they don't understand why someone would ever put false information on the internet, so they just believe it. LOL. Its why you might get an email from your grandmother that says if she doesn't forward it to 10 people, she's in league with satan.

Aside from the studies done, I do know that there is curriculum for high school students that handle this issue. I've been working in the technology industry for many years and will be moving to the classroom in the fall. This subject was addressed during my student teaching and will be addressed by me in the classroom. It's important for future generations to understand that most information they see will come from a point of view. This doesn't mean that you dismiss what you read. I.E. You can't say, "If it's on Fox News, it's a lie," "If it's on MSNBC, it's a lie," or "If it's in the NY Times, it's a lie." Students need to understand how to look for the facts within biased reporting. If facts are selectively shared, they need to be sure to seek out other sources of information to gather more facts.

Now, like I said, this isn't a new problem. It's been a problem since as long as media has existed in one form or another. Heck, there was a reason that some people were against translations of the Bible into common language. Control over information dissemination is a big deal. The main thing that has changed has just been in the ways we see it around us.

There's a little social engineering going on as well.

Centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

TH Spangler wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2019, 6:06 pm Their a little social engineering going on as well.

Centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

Once again, nothing new there.

As Bing Crosby said in White Christmas, "Everybody's got an angle."

This is just my take based on my experience in the technology industry working for a company that's a few hundred billion dollars bigger than Google.

Yacht Rock wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2019, 6:25 pm

TH Spangler wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2019, 6:06 pm Their a little social engineering going on as well.

Centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

Once again, nothing new there.

As Bing Crosby said in White Christmas, "Everybody's got an angle."

This is just my take based on my experience in the technology industry working for a company that's a few hundred billion dollars bigger than Google.

Yea, we know their angle. Leaves out Christ.

Sadly I’d say the angle of all major media companies are absent the gospel.

https://www.tulsi2020.com/tulsi-vs-google

On June 28th, 2019 in the immediate hours following the first Democratic Presidential debate, millions of Americans were searching online for information about Tulsi Gabbard. In fact, according to multiple news reports, Tulsi was the most searched candidate on Google. Then, without any explanation, Google suspended Tulsi’s Google Ads account

Good for Tulsi. The more I hear from Tulsi the more I like. However, she will never get anywhere in the wild Democratic primaries.

chris leedlelee wrote: ↑July 29th, 2019, 9:54 pm Good for Tulsi. The more I hear from Tulsi the more I like. However, she will never get anywhere in the wild Democratic primaries.

She's their best candidate. But must be to centerest for Google's behind the curtain wizard of Oz.

chris leedlelee wrote: ↑July 29th, 2019, 9:54 pm Good for Tulsi. The more I hear from Tulsi the more I like. However, she will never get anywhere in the wild Democratic primaries.

+1. She's one I could vote for if she runs against Trump. I'm still holding out hope for a credible third party candidate this time - holding out hope, but not my breath.

Tulsi won’t eat pork at the Iowa Fair. Because she doesn’t eat meat. Can’t trust Vegans. Cause you know who else was a vegetarian...