0
1

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

Whether this is true or not, the folks that need this info do not read it and if by chance they do, they don't believe it.

0
0

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

The 10% number is bullshit, and Stossel should know better.

That's not to say that a stake doesn't need to be driven through the heart of Google, however.

Facebook is already a walking corpse that is about to fall over.

0
0

[–] anon_poaster [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The 10% number is bullshit, and Stossel should know better.

Ok, I did some digging, and found this study from 2015:

Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson .

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548

We present evidence from five experiments in two countries suggesting the power and robustness of the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). Specifically, we show that (i) biased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more, (ii) the shift can be much higher in some demographic groups, and (iii) such rankings can be masked so that people show no awareness of the manipulation. Knowing the proportion of undecided voters in a population who have Internet access, along with the proportion of those voters who can be influenced using SEME, allows one to calculate the win margin below which SEME might be able to determine an election outcome.

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512

As predicted, subjects spent far more time reading Web pages near the top of the list. But what surprised researchers was the difference those rankings made: Biased search results increased the number of undecided voters choosing the favored candidate by 48% compared with a control group that saw an equal mix of both candidates throughout the list. Very few subjects noticed they were being manipulated, but those who did were actually more likely to vote in line with the biased results.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/internet-search-engines-may-be-influencing-elections

So the 10% number might be with undecided voters.

0
0

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

babes... stossel is suggesting that the israeli mossad controlled facebook and google can sway elections around the world (including us elections) either way by at most 10%... 10% seems low as facebook and google are more like 90% of the worlds populations fake manmade created “gods”... babes, this represents that israel’s tentacles need to be chopped off, other peoples cultures are important to the health of the worlds populations... israel is an arrogant fool... thanks shitsrael!

0
0

[–] truthwoke33 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Why do you say babes? I'd like an actual response and not incoherent schizophrenic rambling, please. I'm serious.

1
0

[–] throwaway52 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Nothing that account says has ever made any sense. They're kind of a joke around here.

0
0

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

Considering the election fraud fest that the midterms have been and the complete lack of legal push back, I'd say elections and voting are no longer even credible and the only vote that is of any use is where you buy your ammo for the upcoming civil war.

0
0

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

I would say that the results of the last presidential election are proof that the 10% figure is wrong. But they undoubtedly have tremendous (and far too much) influence over the democratic process. The ability to shut down pages with millions of followers is not something that should be tolerated in a free society.

0
0

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

I actually tend to like Stossel. A little truth, a little entertaining. He seems to take a mostly unbiased standpoint with reasonable questions. Thats just my opinion.

0
0

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

I agree. As far as journalists go, he’s relatively unbiased.

1
0

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

I'm not a fan of stossel and I hate the arbitrary 10%, it stinks of someone not doing actual analysis. However there is no doubt these big platforms have sway we just need an accurate measure not just a talking head chucking out numbers for ratings.

0
0

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

The 10% number comes from a documentary called "The Creepy Line"

I haven't watched it yet, so I don't know the source & analysis behind the 10% number.

0
0

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