2 ms·
A recent one https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-cli
by alecco 10y ago
A recent one
https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinto...
NOTE: The site is an organization sponsored by Russia. But the researcher is well respected with a Ph.D. from Harvard. His 2015 paper was published in PNAS and reviewed by very respectful people. This article is a preview of his upcoming paper.
Where did you see this proven to be false???
It's sad how critics and whistleblowers have media blackout in USA and only can do it via Russian agencies or Al-Jazeera.
- namesbc 10y agoWell respected? Robert Epstein is the idiot who served malware through his website and when Google displayed a warning about it, Epstein didn't try to fix the problem, he instead went legal and news nuclear claiming Google was trying to censor him.
- agildehaus 10y agoThere's absolutely nothing scientific about that article. It's entirely cherry picked examples. I tried similar queries and got completely different results, often negative. And he lacks basic understanding quite often. In one example, Google pulls a Hillary image instead of a Trump (or both) when referencing the 2016 election in a fact card. He doesn't even think that image is simply the first to appear on that page. Heck, I type "next president" into Google right now and I get a fact card with Obama as the image and "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win" by Michael Moore as the top result.