There is an incredible number of psuedo-allegations against the Clintons. It's been practically its own industry over the last three decades. There may also be

There is an incredible number of psuedo-allegations against the Clintons. It's been practically its own industry over the last three decades. There may also be substantial criticisms but at this point it's pretty well-adjusted for people to assume that any given criticism is more likely psuedo than substantial. I haven't really given Epstein's bias charges much of a serious look because the popular summaries don't address a basic question: what would it even mean for you to say that given search term is "biased" towards one candidate or another, unless what people are typing in is "who should I vote for as President?" Even if that's the level at which we're talking about, in what sense was the bias different than, say, if editorial board upon editorial board of newspapers throughout the United States declared support for Clinton, in spite of any history of frequent support of candidates from the opposite party? Isn't it more likely that what people are searching for is information about candidate positions, statements? Maybe news? Now, maybe this is something that Dr Epstein explains in his more formal research, but why can't he explain it in his popular stuff? Maybe it's so complicated that it defies popular summarization or.... maybe there really isn't a lot of there there. The fact that I can't find answers to any of those questions even where he claims to have detailed methods ( https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Method_for_Detecting_Bias_in_Search_Rankings-AIBRT_WP-17-02_6-1-17.pdf https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Metho... ) strongly suggests the latter to me. The combination of crying wolf when it comes to the Clintons and a lack of a hook makes it pretty easy to ignore. Maybe that's why Dr Epstein is primarily finding only right wing borderline propaganda outlets are listening.