0
3

[–] LittleBobbyTables 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This is such an over-reaching conclusion to a "study/report". All you can draw from this is that people's own search style (search terms/queries) will cause the Google search algorithm to provide them with variable search results from each other, and those sources may influence their behavior and voting views. In other words, if someone were to go into a store that has all of the news papers for the day laid out in racks, some people might look at the news papers on the top of the racks, or maybe just the top right rack. Others might look at the bottom left rack. Generally, however, humans have certain tendencies and predictable behaviors statistically - this plays into the reason why companies and advertisers are able to, for example, usually pay a higher premium to have their products placed at eye level in supermarkets, or how they might decide to place chips and beer in the same aisle (since there is a high correlation between purchases of both items together; although some stores like to separate them at opposite ends of the store in order to force customers to walk and potentially see other things they might decide to buy on impulse).

I'm not saying there isn't the potential for Google to abuse the system and skew results one way or the other if they opted to directly manipulate. However it should be noted that Facebook was guilty of directly manipulating user news feeds in order to conduct their own psychology/sociological experimentation, so this idea isn't new and it would be fair to point that fact out since one has actively carried out such actions while this article is only suggesting it could be theoretically possible for Google to do so.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] LittleBobbyTables 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I am well aware of the potential vulnerability of having a powerful entity like Google sit between consumer and government. I even stated that in theory there is potential for abuse. However I fail to link how the article and "study" linked by the OP actually suggests anything aside from what I stated which is that people's own bias through virtue of their specific search terms and seach queries will have any impact on the search results provided and thus the influence over their own perceptions of candidates. In my opinion what you link to is a completely different issue and topic of consideration.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] jdsutton 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Then voters views will be affected by ixquick or searx instead of Google.

0
1

[–] chakan2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Voters vote for popular candidates...I'm glad that guy with the PhD educated me on that one...shit I was going to vote for Deez Nuts.

1
-1

[–] lofalexandria [S] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I hate this perspective so much.

It does not matter how obvious something seems, if it hasn't been studied empirically it doesn't count from a scientific and rational standpoint. Yes, lots of research into "common sense" things appear to just tell us the obvious, but every now and then they don't and that is why it is important to evaluate everything. All research is important, and all results are important.

0
1

[–] chakan2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

All research is important, and all results are important.

That statement is false, very false. For instance, "the sky is blue" is a very well researched and peer reviewed result. But really, who cares...WHY is the sky blue is an interesting question and research topic.

This is in the same vein...Great...people get more information about popular candidates...who cares, we know that...why not look into what's making popular candidates popular. It's not Google...Google is just poping up with relevant links that people are clicking on. If a person searches for candidate X and selects link Y, link Y goes up in the search results. It's a snowball...an obvious snowball rolling down hill. Why waste your time on that research other than to say "oooh, look at me, I know how Google works...I'm important...really...listen to me...I'M IMPORTANT."

They should throw their weight behind the CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News propoganda machines...that would be interesting research.

0
1

[–] markrod420 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Comment. No shit

0
0

[–] RedLeader 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This makes me think the answer isn't to rely on politics to save people, but for people, readers like you, to take it upon yourself to speak up to other people around you, and challenge their views with the courage to stand by your beliefs if and when you are disagreed with. People aren't all going to see your way of thinking, but if you really believe in your cause then you will find support. Be the change you want to see. Don't demand it from big brother. Challenge the status quo people.

1
0

[–] DrJungyBrogen 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Duckduckgo is a good alternative to google.

1
-1

[–] Nemado 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I hope they don't misuse this power