5 ms·
The article talks about how a search engine can invisibly alter search to affect the outcome of an election. It’s interesting you mentioned watching the news,
by dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
The article talks about how a search engine can invisibly alter search to affect the outcome of an election.
It’s interesting you mentioned watching the news, but delayed…the article was written before the 2016 election and says Google favored Hillary Clinton.
Not taking away the point, because it’s valid…but you should find a newer article without such obvious error…just saying…
- caseysoftware 3y agoI have to admit: I don't know where the "obvious error" is. Which part is incorrect and why? Thanks.
- dirtyhippiefree 3y agoHillary lost, simple as that. So much for the manipulation being cut-and-dried… No, I didn’t support her opponent either…
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- caseysoftware 3y agoI'm still not sure of the error. Could you complete this sentence for me: Their preferred candidate didn't win, therefore...
- dirtyhippiefree 3y agoTheir preferred candidate didn't win, therefore...I would choose a different case to study, because this one disproves what logically exists… Why is this difficult? Edit: Since we have no kinesics or vocal inflection, I should say that I’m not angry or frustrated, just tremendously sad.
- caseysoftware 3y agoThanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, "it didn't work this time" does not translate to "it doesn't work" or even "they didn't try it." Manipulation - or preference shifting if you prefer - is not a binary thing. It's entirely possible to shift preferences (even significantly) but not shift them enough to win.