Why Google Inc. Will Decide the 2016 US Elections

[Virgil Showlion]

Excerpts from an interesting and frightening article out of politico.com (bold by me):

What we call in our research the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) turns out to be one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. Our comprehensive new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), includes the results of five experiments we conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. Because SEME is virtually invisible as a form of social influence, because the effect is so large and because there are currently no specific regulations anywhere in the world that would prevent Google from using and abusing this technique, we believe SEME is a serious threat to the democratic system of government.

...

Our new research leaves little doubt about whether Google has the ability to control voters. In laboratory and online experiments conducted in the United States, we were able to boost the proportion of people who favored any candidate by between 37 and 63 percent after just one search session. The impact of viewing biased rankings repeatedly over a period of weeks or months would undoubtedly be larger.

...

More alarmingly, we also demonstrated this shift with real voters during an actual electoral campaign—in an experiment conducted with more than 2,000 eligible, undecided voters throughout India during the 2014 Lok Sabha election there—the largest democratic election in history, with more than 800 million eligible voters and 480 million votes ultimately cast. Even here, with real voters who were highly familiar with the candidates and who were being bombarded with campaign rhetoric every day, we showed that search rankings could boost the proportion of people favoring any candidate by more than 20 percent—more than 60 percent in some demographic groups.

Given how powerful this effect is, it’s possible that Google decided the winner of the Indian election. ...

The article by Dr. Epstein et al.: www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512.abstract

The politico piece goes into detail on why and how search engines might be manipulated to effect substantial changes in voter opinion. It also points out which candidates are taking muy Google campaign bux and have former Google execs on staff as part of their campaign teams.

What say you, fellow drones?

[billisonboard]

There is the assumption that a significant number of American voters will do a search for information about candidates. I question that assumption.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 21, 2015 16:39:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

There is the assumption that a significant number of American voters will do a search for information about candidates. I question that assumption.  

I wondered about that too. They didn't give any estimates as to how many people that might be in a typical election.

I definitely think the number would be significant. Significant enough to change an election outcome? I don't know.

[The Captain]

Aug 21, 2015 16:39:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

There is the assumption that a significant number of American voters will do a search for information about candidates. I question that assumption.  

Ouch.  True, but...ouch.

[cktc]

Looking at the first page of results for the top 3 candidates in each race it would appear Google wants Trump vs. Sanders. Clinton and Walker are pretty much all terrible headlines.

One would have to wonder how much of a role news outlets and user queries play. I'm also curious how the search results would change over the course of the election season.

[Opti]

Just read a bit of the full text article. It would be interesting to see if the results actually held when testing undecided voters on politicians they would actually vote for. I only skimmed through the first experiment which was rating Australian politicians by undecided American voters. Since people are not necessarily truthful on polls and stuff like this I'd like to see something more relevant.

I do agree search result orders do matter. The only candidates I ever research on the internet that I know little about tend to be local candidates. Not sure if its worth it to Google to manipulate school board and town elections.

I'm not going to panic, this is swaying undecided voters which I realize does tend to win elections for folks but they are also usually the demographic most likely to not get out and vote.

[cktc]

Haven't there also been studies that campaigning has a greater effect the closer you get to election day? I wonder how much time was given between the googling and the polling. If people had time to sleep on it, discuss, and be exposed to other information, would what they googled last week still have that great of an influence?

[OldCoyote]

True Politics By Sen. Claire McCaskill.

If you read the link to this thread I posted earlier, it show how much politics can be manipulated. even on a local level.

So if you have a search engine that directs you to better poll result, better news stories,

Than the opposite where the opponent searches are directed to lower poll results ( through the way questions are asked) and  more derogatory news reports.

I would say not only could this be happening,  MOST likely is already happening!! 

[Deleted]

In a way it would be nice to know who chose our leaders.

[NoNamePerson]

Aug 22, 2015 8:26:22 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

True Politics By Sen. Claire McCaskill.

If you read the link to this thread I posted earlier, it show how much politics can be manipulated. even on a local level.

So if you have a search engine that directs you to better poll result, better news stories,

Than the opposite where the opponent searches are directed to lower poll results ( through the way questions are asked) and  more derogatory news reports.

I would say not only could this be happening,  MOST likely is already happening!! 

That's all politics is - manipulations. I remember reading "The Fifth Estate" back in 74-75 - yep it's fiction. The notion that media, regardless of the type, can manipulate elections is as old as time itself. Elections are bought and sold every day.

ETA: I didn't read you prior thread - the bolded just caught my eye here   

[Deleted]

Aug 22, 2015 11:30:59 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

In a way it would be nice to know who chose our leaders.

We already do. Tens of millions of barely informed voters and they base their decision mostly on whether the candidate looked and sounded "presidential enough" during paid campaign ads. Probably not the greatest way to choose the leader of the most powerful country on the planet, but that's how we've done it for a while and we're sort of partial to the process.

The premise of the article if I understand it correctly is that Google can manipulate voter choice.  If so it is still the voters who directly choose the candidates, but they are manipulated.  I believe that is the case now. 

[happyhoix]

Voters are stupid and easily led.

But we knew that already.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 24, 2015 7:53:03 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Voters are stupid and easily led.

But we knew that already.

The novelty here is the massive scale on which it can be done.

As for the likelihood of people searching for political candidates, Google trends has topics like "donald trump net worth", "donald trump president", "donald trump businessman", etc., etc. all with "millions and millions" of queries in 2015 (unfortunately Google doesn't offer the specific numbers to non-paying customers). The vast majority of these were by Americans.

If over the course of a US election cycle the aggregate numbers total in the billions of searches, I daresay SEME could have a measurable effect, especially if it's as powerful as the authors claim it is.

[happyhoix]

Aug 24, 2015 9:45:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 24, 2015 7:53:03 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Voters are stupid and easily led.

But we knew that already.

The novelty here is the massive scale on which it can be done.

As for the likelihood of people searching for political candidates, Google trends has topics like "donald trump net worth", "donald trump president", "donald trump businessman", etc., etc. all with "millions and millions" of queries in 2015 (unfortunately Google doesn't offer the specific numbers to non-paying customers). The vast majority of these were by Americans.

If over the course of a US election cycle the aggregate numbers total in the billions of searches, I daresay SEME could have a measurable effect, especially if it's as powerful as the authors claim it is.

I'm sure it does have a sizable impact.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

The lobbyists who control our government use Google to make their decisions?  Who would have guessed.

[Tennesseer]

AN interesting addition to this thread:


Chris Christie Features ISIS Beheadings In New Campaign Ad

A new presidential campaign ad for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) features explicit images of beheadings by the Islamic State militant group, marking a growing trend among Republican candidates seeking to attack President Barack Obama.

The 30-second campaign video, “Law Enforcer,” was released on Monday. Christie lists a series of examples of “lawlessness in America and around the world” during Obama's presidency. He intones that these acts of lawlessness include “ISIS beheading Christians" as stills of the Islamic State's flag and militants poised to behead prisoners appear on screen.

In addition to featuring images of the Islamic State, Christie's new ad contains other graphic photos to support his argument that Obama has enabled crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, a rise in heroin abuse and Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

The New Jersey governor then promises to reverse these trends as commander in chief.

Media watchdogs have criticized the way news outlets and politicians are using video from Islamic State beheadings to exploit the tragic murders and rack up page views or votes. Critics argue that republishing explicit images from the beheadings plays into the extremist group’s media-based terror strategy.

link to article.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 24, 2015 15:49:13 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

AN interesting addition to this thread:


Chris Christie Features ISIS Beheadings In New Campaign Ad

A new presidential campaign ad for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) features explicit images of beheadings by the Islamic State militant group, marking a growing trend among Republican candidates seeking to attack President Barack Obama.

The 30-second campaign video, “Law Enforcer,” was released on Monday. Christie lists a series of examples of “lawlessness in America and around the world” .

LOL!  is he under indictment, yet?

[Tennesseer]

Aug 24, 2015 15:53:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 24, 2015 15:49:13 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

AN interesting addition to this thread:


Chris Christie Features ISIS Beheadings In New Campaign Ad

A new presidential campaign ad for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) features explicit images of beheadings by the Islamic State militant group, marking a growing trend among Republican candidates seeking to attack President Barack Obama.

The 30-second campaign video, “Law Enforcer,” was released on Monday. Christie lists a series of examples of “lawlessness in America and around the world” .

LOL!  is he under indictment, yet?

Don't know. But his campaign is swimming upstream the Passaic River.

[dondub]

I had a great bumper sticker form the '72 election...Nixxon, a vote for law and order!