Not so strangely this video is hard to find. But you must watch it, share it, email it. And come to my talk on August 15th in NYC, it’s time to war council.
The exchange between Senator Ted Cruz and Google expert Dr. Robert Epstein should shake every American. The Left will not be able to defeat Trump on the issues, so they will surely cheat. And big-tech giants make cheating easy through censorship and search engine manipulation. In the case of Google, bias search results and bias search suggestions would be incredibly damaging to President Trump in 2020.
Dr. Epstein believes that this tactic provided Hilary Clinton with “between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes” which is a huge number. However, Epstein believes that this number could reach 15 million in 2020.
President Trump must address big-tech cheating before the 2020 presidential election.
Professor Robert Epstein told Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) that Google is manipulating voters “on a massive scale,” using tools that it has at its disposal exclusively, and that “no one can counteract them.” Epstein warned the Senator of big tech election meddling that he called “invisible,” “subliminal,” and more powerful than anything he’s seen in 40 years of behavioral sciences.
Epstein — who said that he personally supported and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 — testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, where he told Sen. Cruz that Google election meddling gave Hillary Clinton at least 2.6 million additional votes in the 2016 election and said that figure is even way too low.
“The 2.6 million is a rock bottom minimum,” said Epstein, “The range is between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes, depending on how aggressively they use the techniques that I’ve been studying now for six and a half years — such as the search engine manipulation effect, the search suggestion effect, the answer bot effect, and a number of others.”
“They control these and no one can counteract them,” added the professor, “These are not competitive, these are tools that they have at their disposal exclusively.”
“I believe in democracy, I believe in a free and fair election more than I have any kind of allegiance to a candidate or a party,” affirmed Epstein on Tuesday. “In 2020 — if all these companies are supporting the same candidate — there are 15 million votes on the line that can be shifted without people’s knowledge, and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.”
Epstein elaborated on his assertion by describing an example involving Facebook.
If [in 2016] Mark Zuckerberg, for example, had chosen to send out a ‘Go Vote’ reminder, say, just to Democrats — and no one would have known if he had done this — that would have given that day an additional — at least 450,000 votes to Democrats, and we know this without doubt, because of Facebook’s own published data — they did an experiment that they can tell anyone about during the 2010 election — they published it in 2012, it had 60 million Facebook users involved.
They sent out a ‘Go Vote’ reminder, and they got something like 360,000 more people to get off their sofas and go vote, who otherwise would have stayed home. The point is, I don’t think that Mr. Zuckerberg sent out that reminder in 2016, I think he was overconfident, I think Google was overconfident, all these companies were. I don’t think he sent that out — without monitoring systems in place, we’ll never know what these companies are doing — but the point is, in 2018, I’m sure they were more aggressive, we have lots of data to support that.
“And in 2020, you can bet that all of these companies are going to go all out,” continued Epstein, “And the methods that they’re using are invisible, they’re subliminal, they’re more powerful than most — any effects I’ve ever seen in the behavioral sciences, and I’ve been in the behavioral sciences for almost 40 years.”
“What you are testifying to is that a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires and giant corporations are able to spend millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars collectively, massively influencing the results of elections?” asked Cruz.
“Senator, with respect, I must correct you,” replied Epstein, “If Mark Zuckerberg chooses to send out a ‘Go Vote’ reminder just to democrats on Election Day, that doesn’t cost him a dime.” (Breitbart)
Donald Trump’s claim that Google has been manipulating search results has been debated hotly in the media. Trump has recently reignited his suspicions about Google.
By Corinne Weaver | Newsbusters, July 17, 2019:
Big Tech’s biggest threat to democracy isn’t censorship or privacy: it’s election manipulation.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, “Google and Censorship through Search Engines,” Dr. Robert Epstein, who researches the impact of Google, informed the hearing that “upwards of 15 million votes” were in jeopardy in the 2020 election. During his testimony, Epstein told Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) that in 2016, Google gave at least 2.6 million votes to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, “through bias and search results.” He stressed that was the lowest number.
When questioned further by Cruz, Epstein gave a more concise answer: “The range is between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes depending on how aggressive they were in using the techniques that I’ve been studying, such as the search engine manipulation effect, the search suggestion effect, the answer bot effect, and a number of others. They control these and no one can counteract them. These are not competitive. These are tools that they have at their disposal exclusively.”
Cruz was shocked by this, responding, “If any headline comes out of this hearing, that should be it.”
Epstein further warned, “In 2020, you can bet that all of these companies are going to go all out, and the methods they are using are invisible, they’re subliminal, they are more powerful than most any effects I’ve ever seen in behavioral sciences and I’ve been in behavioral sciences for almost 40 years.”
Cruz reminded those at the hearing that Google’s parent company, Alphabet, was Clinton’s biggest corporate supporter in 2016. The company donated $1.6 million to the former Secretary of State, according to OpenSecrets.org.
The senator asked Epstein after his testimony if it was true that a “handful of Silicon Valley billionaires and giant corporations are able to spend millions of dollars, if not billions, collectively massively influencing the results of the elections.” Epstein gave the troubling answer, “Senator, with respect I must correct you. If Mark Zuckerberg chooses to send out a go vote reminder to just Democrats on election day, that doesn’t cost him a dime.”
Cruz voiced the fears of the GOP when it came to Big Tech, saying “we have no way of knowing if Google or Facebook or Twitter sends things to Democrats or Republicans or how they bias it because its a black box with no transparency or accountability whatsoever.”
Epstein suggested that Congress move to make Google’s search index public, which would simply reshape the company slightly and make its decisions to rank and order information more transparent.
World Bulletin Interview:
The reality is that people trust the “unbiased” internet search giant Google so much it can actually influence up to 10 million undecided voters to choose Hillary Clinton for president, prominent US psychologist and author Robert Epstein told RT following years of research. This exclusive report in RT highlights how – despite being a supporter of the Democratic presidential nominee – Dr. Epstein believes Google’s unchecked algorithm of placing one candidate over the other in search results constitutes a “threat to democracy.”
RT: Robert, how did you discover that Google is possibly in cahoots with the Clinton campaign?
RE: Well I didn’t find out that they were necessarily supporting Hillary Clinton, that’s not what I found at first. First, through several years of research, I found that they had the power to control elections, the power to shift the votes. So, that was more than four years of experimental research with more than 10,000 people in 39 countries.
So, we established through some very careful experiments that by favoring one candidate in search rankings Google can shift a lot of votes. More than 20 percent of undecided voters overall, and in some demographic groups up to 80 percent of undecided voters. People trust search rankings so much that if one candidate is favored in search rankings that shifts peoples’ votes.
Now, more recently, many people have established that Google has a very close relationship with Hillary Clinton. That didn’t come from my research, that came from all kinds of investigative research by many people.
RT: Are you going to take a look at Facebook and Twitter as well? It looks like social media play an even bigger role in the elections than televised debates.
RE: Well, we know now that Facebook has the power to shift about 600,000 votes to Hillary Clinton on Election Day with no one knowing this is occurring. All they have to do is send out “Go out and vote” reminders to Hillary Clinton’s supporters, but not to Trump’s supporters. That would cause a lot of people to vote who would otherwise stay home. So yes, we’ve looked at Facebook, we’ve looked at Twitter. But again, Facebook can shift 600,000 votes, Google can shift somewhere between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes.
RT: Have you been able to find abnormal search results by Google in some other countries intended to influence the outcome of elections?RE: We haven’t look carefully at too many countries. We’ve looked at the UK election in 2015, we looked at the national election in India, at the Lok Sabha election in 2014. What we do know is that it is the nature of Google’s algorithm to put one candidate ahead of another. That happens automatically. That happens, as Google would say, organically. So, this means that Google’s algorithm has probably been determining the outcomes of close elections around the world for many years, probably actually controlling the winner in as many as 25 percent of the national elections of the world.
RT: What do you think about this threat of big data? Do you think Google and other search engines analyses all search results by an individual for a good purpose?
RE: Well, big data at the moment is a threat. It’s a threat to democracy, at least as we have it in the United States, it’s a threat to human freedom, it’s a threat to civil liberties. This is mainly because the technologies are very new, and new means of control, of surveillance, of manipulation are being developed which at the moment are not regulated – they’re not covered by any laws or regulations. So, the problem is that these technologies have developed quickly, and we have not developed systems for monitoring these technologies, we’ve not developed systems for regulating these technologies. Obviously, we must do so.
RT: You’ve said that unlike Europe, Russia and China were able to overcome the Google monopoly, but a lot of people are still using this search engine. Do you think that the US company can manipulate public opinion in Russia as well?
RE: Well, it’s hard for them to manipulate opinion if they don’t dominate that country. Google dominates most of the countries in the world. The only countries it doesn’t dominate are Russia and China. So, Russia and China are protected a little bit from Google, but Russia and China have their own problems. Russia has Yandex, China has Baidu, and these companies can use techniques just as the ones that Google is using and perhaps they’re already using these techniques. These techniques can be used by any big tech company that provides a search engine. These techniques can be used by any big tech company that provides search suggestions.
My newest research shows, for example, that Google seems to be favoring Hillary Clinton in its search suggestions, the suggestions it gives you when you first start to type an item, and from new research I’ve done, we know that if you suppress negative search suggestions from one candidate, that shifts votes and opinions towards that candidate. So, Google is not the only problem. Any of these big tech companies can use these techniques for surveillance, for manipulation, for control, and I think we have to be concerned about the big tech industries in general around the world, not just Google.
RT: How do you oppose such great power being wielded by one corporation like Google?
RE: Well, the problem with a lot of power being in the hands of one company is that the private company is not answerable to the public. The private company does not have people who we voted on. The private company might be run almost like a monarchy, with the CEO having enormous power and the public having no say whatsoever in what they do, even not having access to their internal records. So we would have no idea of exactly what they’re doing or how they’re doing it and how they’re making decisions. This is potentially very dangerous. The situation right now is unprecedented in human history. There has never been so much power placed in the hands of so few people who are beyond the reach of any laws, beyond the reach of any regulations, and who don’t necessarily have the public interest in mind.
I made a prediction on Twitter recently, you can check this: I not only have predicted that he will set up his own television network but that he will launch his network with a guaranteed hit show. It will be a reality TV show about Donald Trump running for president, and that will be a hit show, so I think that’s his only interest here. Hillary Clinton will become our next president, it’s guaranteed and in my opinion Donald Trump has no interest, never had any interest in becoming president.
RT: Do you believe that Hillary Clinton will become US president through the manipulation of public opinion?
RE: Oh, Hillary Clinton is guaranteed to win this election, and I have said previously based on polls that seem to show a kind of a close vote, that those polls did not take into account the power that Google and other companies have to shift votes. That’s missing from these polls. So, once you realize the power that these companies have, Hillary Clinton is absolutely guaranteed to win, and she will win in the margin of somewhere between 2.6 million and 10 million votes. If we take the mean, the average of those two numbers, I guess you could say it’s pretty clear that she will win by approximately 6.5 million votes.
RT: GIVEN THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS SUCH AN EXPENSIVE AND POWERFUL MEDIA INDUSTRY, WOULD YOU SAY THAT VOTERS IN THE US HAVE A REAL PICTURE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?
RE: Well, voters in the United States I think do get a pretty good picture because we have so many different kinds of media and people are just bombarded with information from newspapers, magazines and the internet, more than 400 different television channels. So I think we do get a pretty complex and deep picture of things, but you have to remember that all of these forms of media are competitive. So, we’re getting one perspective from one magazine, another perspective from another magazine.
But when you come to something like Google, there’s no competition. There’s no competitor. It’s a completely different kind of influence, it’s non-competitive. In other words, if you’re still trying to make up your mind and you go to Google and ask a question about the candidates or about some sort of issue related to the election, Google will show you whatever it wants to show you and that can easily, easily tip your opinion one way or the other and there’s no competitor, there’s no way for anyone to compensate what Google just told you.
So, this is a completely new and very dangerous kind of influence. It has no competition, there’s no corrective for it, and people trust Google – we know this from surveys – people trust Google more than they trust any newspaper, any magazine or any television station. People trust information that they get from a computer much more than information they’re getting from television or a newspaper because they know that television and newspapers are biased, because they know that people are actually giving them the information. But when they get information out of a computer they mistakenly believe that that information is impartial, that information is objective and of course, that’s not really true, but that’s what people believe.
Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller