5 ms·

None of those blog posts debunk the idea that Google manipulates search results to favor particular political parties. Mashable has a statement from Google (the

None of those blog posts debunk the idea that Google manipulates search results to favor particular political parties. Mashable has a statement from Google (the other two don't), saying that they don't but why would they say if they were? None of these debunk the claims made by Google employees in the Project Veritas videos.

bduerst 7y ago
Except you're wrong in that you can't logically prove something doesn't exist. You can't prove that pink unicorns don't exist, just as much as you can't prove that political bias in the search results don't exist. All you can do is disprove the claims of their existence. Someone tries to claim there's a pink unicorn in the garage, and you can check the garage and say that the it is pink unicorn free. Someone tries to claim political bias exist for hillary clinton in instant search results, and these articles disprove that claim as using cherry picked evidence. Now, if you suspect that the instant search results are politically biased, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of that existence - preferrably without cherry picking evidence to fit an agenda yourself. Otherwise it's just hand waving and click bait.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > Now, if you suspect that the instant search results are politically biased, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of that existence The proof is a senior Google employee admitting to bias and manipulating results in the Project Veritas video. There's also plenty of anecdotal evidence you can see for yourself as a user. In addition to that I know many people who work at Google and the vast majority of them have extreme political bias.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    This is precisely the hand-waving I was talking about. An employee rambling in a bar does not constitute evidence of search result manipulation, especially when the person recording it is known for stretching information, inciting people to commit voter fraud, and crossing the U.S. Mexico border dressed as deceased Osama Bin Laden to prove some point. Likewise, the handful of people you know having political views, in an organization of 85,000 people, is not evidence that that organization's search results being biased. If there is so much anecdotal evidence then it should be easy for you to prove, right? Or are you afraid of being disproven?
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      You asked for proof and I gave it to you. I'm sorry you don't like the source, but unless you want to address what Jen Gennai said, I don't think you have much of a point.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        Jen Gennai herself points out how Veritas is lying about what she said: https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... James Okeefe is publicly known for selectively editing video to make false representations, and this duck is no different. You specifically claimed that there's plenty of anecdotal evidence. Where is it?
  - nova22033 7y ago
    There's also plenty of anecdotal evidence you can see for yourself as a user. In addition to that I know > anecdotal evidence > I know So much hard data here...real hacker news material...
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      You conveniently leave off: "The proof is a senior Google employee admitting to bias and manipulating results in the Project Veritas video."
      - bduerst 7y ago
        https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... >Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - knowaveragejoe 7y ago
    The "proof" is extremely shaky. Veritas has a record of creating these types of videos where they draw conclusions out of thin air. Here's what the person in particular has to say: https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo...

bduerst 7y ago

Except you're wrong in that you can't logically prove something doesn't exist. You can't prove that pink unicorns don't exist, just as much as you can't prove that political bias in the search results don't exist. All you can do is disprove the claims of their existence. Someone tries to claim there's a pink unicorn in the garage, and you can check the garage and say that the it is pink unicorn free. Someone tries to claim political bias exist for hillary clinton in instant search results, and these articles disprove that claim as using cherry picked evidence. Now, if you suspect that the instant search results are politically biased, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of that existence - preferrably without cherry picking evidence to fit an agenda yourself. Otherwise it's just hand waving and click bait.

malvosenior 7y ago
> Now, if you suspect that the instant search results are politically biased, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of that existence The proof is a senior Google employee admitting to bias and manipulating results in the Project Veritas video. There's also plenty of anecdotal evidence you can see for yourself as a user. In addition to that I know many people who work at Google and the vast majority of them have extreme political bias.
- bduerst 7y ago
  This is precisely the hand-waving I was talking about. An employee rambling in a bar does not constitute evidence of search result manipulation, especially when the person recording it is known for stretching information, inciting people to commit voter fraud, and crossing the U.S. Mexico border dressed as deceased Osama Bin Laden to prove some point. Likewise, the handful of people you know having political views, in an organization of 85,000 people, is not evidence that that organization's search results being biased. If there is so much anecdotal evidence then it should be easy for you to prove, right? Or are you afraid of being disproven?
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    You asked for proof and I gave it to you. I'm sorry you don't like the source, but unless you want to address what Jen Gennai said, I don't think you have much of a point.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Jen Gennai herself points out how Veritas is lying about what she said: https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... James Okeefe is publicly known for selectively editing video to make false representations, and this duck is no different. You specifically claimed that there's plenty of anecdotal evidence. Where is it?
- nova22033 7y ago
  There's also plenty of anecdotal evidence you can see for yourself as a user. In addition to that I know > anecdotal evidence > I know So much hard data here...real hacker news material...
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    You conveniently leave off: "The proof is a senior Google employee admitting to bias and manipulating results in the Project Veritas video."
    - bduerst 7y ago
      https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo... >Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very public about the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- knowaveragejoe 7y ago
  The "proof" is extremely shaky. Veritas has a record of creating these types of videos where they draw conclusions out of thin air. Here's what the person in particular has to say: https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82 https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-mo...