Berto Jongman: Google and Facebook Election Interference CAN Be Monitored

10 Transnational Crime, Commerce, Corruption, IO Impotency
Berto Jongman

Taming Big Tech: The Case for Monitoring

How, working in the shadows of the internet, researchers developed a passive monitoring system that might soon make Big Tech companies accountable to the public — and even save democracy.

Here is what we found:

Here is what we found:

1) Bias. Overall, search rankings favored Mrs. Clinton over most of the 6-month period we had monitored — enough, perhaps, to have shifted more than two million votes to her without people knowing how this had occurred. The pro-Clinton tilt appeared even though the search terms our field agents chose to use were, on average, slightly biased toward Mr. Trump.

2) Lots of bias. Between October 15th and Election Day — the period when we received the largest volume of data — on all 22 of the days we received data, search rankings favored Mrs. Clinton in all 10 of the search positions on the first page of search results.

3) Google. The pro-Clinton favoritism was more than twice as large on Google than on Yahoo’s search engine, which is, in any case, little more than an offshoot of Google’s search engine these days. We had to discard our Bing data because all of it came from gmail users (more about this issue in a moment).

4) Demographic differences. Pro-Clinton search results were especially prevalent among decided voters, males, the young, and voters in Democratic states. But voters in Republican and swing states saw pro-Clinton search results too.

5) Tapering off. Over the course of the 10 days following the election, the pro-Clinton tilt gradually disappeared. All of these findings were highly statistically significant.

Read full article.

See Especially:

Dr. Robert Epstein Testimony on Google Censorship – #GoogleGestapo

Zero Hedge: Google Biased at Every Level — #GoogleGestapo Goes for 2020

See Also: