10 ms·

Caveat: The author is not a technologists Robert Epstein (born June 19, 1953) is an American psychologist, professor, author, and journalist. He earned his Ph.

by nova22033 7y ago

Caveat: The author is not a technologists Robert Epstein (born June 19, 1953) is an American psychologist, professor, author, and journalist. He earned his Ph.D. in psychology at Harvard University in 1981, was editor in chief of Psychology Today, He has also made some questionable claims about google manipulating search results to favor Hillary Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Epstein#cite_note-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Epstein#cite_note-15 His research is based entirely on his own experience “It is somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton or to make any Clinton-related suggestions when one types a negative search term,” writes Dr. Robert Epstein, Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.

swebs 7y ago
He does raise some good points in his findings: https://sputniknews.com/us/201609121045214398-google-clinton-manipulation-election/ https://sputniknews.com/us/201609121045214398-google-clinton... I know Sputnik isn't a good source, but according to him, they were the only ones who would publish the findings without edits.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  Thats a pretty strong indication that his claims are BS. Sputnik is a literal propaganda arm.
  - swebs 7y ago
    It's certainly grounds for more scrutiny, but not outright dismissal before even looking at it.
    - JaRail 7y ago
      I usually find expert consensus to be pretty good grounds.
    - UncleMeat 7y ago
      Sputnik has twisted my actual research from grad school into garbage propaganda. I've seen first hand how "accurate" their reporting is. I'm likely to believe that something adjacent to their claims is true but I believe that slapping their name on something makes it less likely to be true.
- nova22033 7y ago
  they were the only ones who would publish the findings without edits. They only let him do that because it fits with their agenda. The real test is if they would let him publish an article on Putin's corruption...without edits..
aerovistae 7y ago
Perhaps the author should consider that Hilary Clinton is a perfect human being.
tomweingarten 7y ago
The comments he made are not just questionable, they're outright wrong (and a great example of the problem with cherry-picking data): https://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google-debunked https://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-googl... https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jun/23/andrew-napolitano/did-google-adjust-its-autocomplete-algorithm-hide-/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jun/23... (Disclosure: I work at Google, but this opinion is my own)
- drevil-v2 7y ago
  Speaking of cherry picking, I wouldn't use vox as reliable source for bipartisan data.
  - fjp 7y ago
    Or politifact...
    - EdSharkey 7y ago
      tomweingarten can't see past the tip of his ideological nose. It's gonna be such a shocker to him when his megacorp gets shattered into a million little pieces.
    - swebs 7y ago
      https://www.politifactbias.com/ https://www.politifactbias.com/
    - knowaveragejoe 7y ago
      I've seen plenty of politifact and snopes fact-checks that go against the conspiracies that you guys seem to think are underway in those types of organizations.
  - _jal 7y ago
    Do you have an example of Vox being dishonest?
briandear 7y ago
> He has also made some questionable claims about google manipulating search results to favor Hillary Clinton. Despite it being off topic, can we define why those claims are questionable? Is their data proving those claims wrong? Because with all the Google political controversies over the past few years, and given the political donation history of Google employees, it’s highly plausible that search results are manipulated to favor certain politics over others. If the “questionable claims” have been disproven or are inaccurate, then it would seem that you’d provide some proof. Essentially, it you are to claim the search engine was not biased towards Clinton, certainly there would be some proof of that? It’s more reasonable to suspect Google manipulating search engines than not, given the political environment at Google. The real “questionable claim” is that Google is neutral in any way — which is kind of the entire premise of the article. If Google were completely neutral, then why would their monopoly on search need to be broken?
- nova22033 7y ago
  >Despite it being off topic, can we define why those claims are questionable? the claims are questionable because his methodology is questionable. If he claims google is biased, he should have a good peer reviewable study that proves this..not google is biased because google didn't auto prompt me with "created AIDS" when I typed in hillary Clinton.... And he's the one making the claim that google is biased...The burden of proof is on HIM. This is a forum for people in the tech world, right? Shouldn't we question N=1 "studies"?
- djsumdog 7y ago
  What about Project Veritas? People claim the statements by Google employed were taken out of context, but I've gone back, listened to them, looked at the videos, and it's hard to think in what context anything they said is acceptable. Even if the specific engineers and managers in the video clips don't have the level of authority to make the changes they're talking about, it's still chilling that their attitude could be common in Google and they see political ends of their great power as being some kind of great responsibility; instead of respecting the idea of equal/diversity of opinion.
  - 7y ago
klntsky 7y ago
> It is somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton Would be nice to know whether it was because of the search history bubble he lived in or not.
- kevindqc 7y ago
  Someone mentioned you can't get any suggestion for Hillary Clinton Email. If I type "Hillary Clinton Emai" I don't even get a suggestion for email :/
learnfromstory 7y ago
Just FYI the completion results in the omnibox have little to do with the search engine results. Clearly the search engine produces millions of hits for “Hillary Clinton emails”. The completions are a completely separate system based on what people type in the box, not what’s in the index, and it’s laser-focused on producing interactive results.

swebs 7y ago

He does raise some good points in his findings: https://sputniknews.com/us/201609121045214398-google-clinton-manipulation-election/ https://sputniknews.com/us/201609121045214398-google-clinton... I know Sputnik isn't a good source, but according to him, they were the only ones who would publish the findings without edits.

UncleMeat 7y ago
Thats a pretty strong indication that his claims are BS. Sputnik is a literal propaganda arm.
- swebs 7y ago
  It's certainly grounds for more scrutiny, but not outright dismissal before even looking at it.
  - JaRail 7y ago
    I usually find expert consensus to be pretty good grounds.
  - UncleMeat 7y ago
    Sputnik has twisted my actual research from grad school into garbage propaganda. I've seen first hand how "accurate" their reporting is. I'm likely to believe that something adjacent to their claims is true but I believe that slapping their name on something makes it less likely to be true.
nova22033 7y ago
they were the only ones who would publish the findings without edits. They only let him do that because it fits with their agenda. The real test is if they would let him publish an article on Putin's corruption...without edits..

aerovistae 7y ago

Perhaps the author should consider that Hilary Clinton is a perfect human being.

tomweingarten 7y ago

The comments he made are not just questionable, they're outright wrong (and a great example of the problem with cherry-picking data): https://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google-debunked https://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-googl... https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jun/23/andrew-napolitano/did-google-adjust-its-autocomplete-algorithm-hide-/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jun/23... (Disclosure: I work at Google, but this opinion is my own)

drevil-v2 7y ago
Speaking of cherry picking, I wouldn't use vox as reliable source for bipartisan data.
- fjp 7y ago
  Or politifact...
  - EdSharkey 7y ago
    tomweingarten can't see past the tip of his ideological nose. It's gonna be such a shocker to him when his megacorp gets shattered into a million little pieces.
  - swebs 7y ago
    https://www.politifactbias.com/ https://www.politifactbias.com/
  - knowaveragejoe 7y ago
    I've seen plenty of politifact and snopes fact-checks that go against the conspiracies that you guys seem to think are underway in those types of organizations.
- _jal 7y ago
  Do you have an example of Vox being dishonest?

briandear 7y ago

> He has also made some questionable claims about google manipulating search results to favor Hillary Clinton. Despite it being off topic, can we define why those claims are questionable? Is their data proving those claims wrong? Because with all the Google political controversies over the past few years, and given the political donation history of Google employees, it’s highly plausible that search results are manipulated to favor certain politics over others. If the “questionable claims” have been disproven or are inaccurate, then it would seem that you’d provide some proof. Essentially, it you are to claim the search engine was not biased towards Clinton, certainly there would be some proof of that? It’s more reasonable to suspect Google manipulating search engines than not, given the political environment at Google. The real “questionable claim” is that Google is neutral in any way — which is kind of the entire premise of the article. If Google were completely neutral, then why would their monopoly on search need to be broken?

nova22033 7y ago
>Despite it being off topic, can we define why those claims are questionable? the claims are questionable because his methodology is questionable. If he claims google is biased, he should have a good peer reviewable study that proves this..not google is biased because google didn't auto prompt me with "created AIDS" when I typed in hillary Clinton.... And he's the one making the claim that google is biased...The burden of proof is on HIM. This is a forum for people in the tech world, right? Shouldn't we question N=1 "studies"?
djsumdog 7y ago
What about Project Veritas? People claim the statements by Google employed were taken out of context, but I've gone back, listened to them, looked at the videos, and it's hard to think in what context anything they said is acceptable. Even if the specific engineers and managers in the video clips don't have the level of authority to make the changes they're talking about, it's still chilling that their attitude could be common in Google and they see political ends of their great power as being some kind of great responsibility; instead of respecting the idea of equal/diversity of opinion.
- 7y ago

klntsky 7y ago

> It is somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton Would be nice to know whether it was because of the search history bubble he lived in or not.

kevindqc 7y ago
Someone mentioned you can't get any suggestion for Hillary Clinton Email. If I type "Hillary Clinton Emai" I don't even get a suggestion for email :/

learnfromstory 7y ago

Just FYI the completion results in the omnibox have little to do with the search engine results. Clearly the search engine produces millions of hits for “Hillary Clinton emails”. The completions are a completely separate system based on what people type in the box, not what’s in the index, and it’s laser-focused on producing interactive results.