Ben Bartley reports on PJ Media: “Robert Epstein….director of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), has concluded through a quantitative analysis of Google search engine manipulation and subsequent extrapolation to the population level that the company… added six million votes to Joe Biden’s column in 2020. If accurate, this was more than enough to have artificially swayed the election….The value of Epstein’s work is that it confirms what is immediately obvious to anyone paying attention who searches a contentious term in Google and then searches for the exact same term in a non-compromised search engine like DuckDuckGo.”
Observations:
- I have no idea whether this conclusion is warranted or not. It is sure to be dismissed as a right-wing, pro Trump conspiracy theory by the mainstream media, but then we know what they see their role as, don’t we? No, it can’t be proven: how could it be? It’s like proving what the results of climate change will be in a hundred years, and nobody takes that seriously…
- Nonetheless, I find the conclusions plausible, just watching how Google has halved Ethics Alarms traffic by burying it for no discernible reason. Once, as recently as 2016, Ethics Alarms would turn up #12 on a Google search for “ethics commentary.” Now it is so far down I couldn’t find it just now.
- Interestingly, I stumbled upon the Bartley report and forgot where I found it, so I googled “2020 election Google 6 million votes.” Nothing. Gee, what a surprise.
- The great aspect of this kind of election-rigging is that there is no law against it, and no way to stop it.
- Epstein recently explained his research methods on a podcast, but he had reported them back in 2020, as noted here, and has been warning about Big Tech voter manipulation since before the 2016 election. His research didn’t dent the mainstream media then, either. (Ethics Alarms mentioned his concerns about Google’s election tactics in 2020 as well. That probably knocked Ethics Alarms even further down the search results list…)
- Whatever else they might mean, Epstein’s conclusions mean that the mantra that Doanld Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was “stolen,” “rigged” or “fixed” are “baseless” is a lie. Epstein’s work may be flawed, and Trump may be wrong, but his conclusions are still a legitimate base to justify questioning the integrity of the 2020 election.
Ethics Alarms 
Unfortunately, there’s no way to go back and undo the 2020 election, only to go forward next year. It does even look like a good chunk of the mainstream media is turning against Biden. Between his age, his obvious cognitive decline, his incompetence, and his unpopularity, he is not putting the Democratic Party in a good place for next year, and what is more, the Democrats have a rough Senate map to defend. I’ve heard a few folks say now and then but the Republicans are going to lose the house next year, but there’s really no factual basis for believing that. Google is probably nervous because with reports like this out there, if the Republicans ever get the power, there’s a good chance they may get regulated to prevent stuff like this. The first amendment guarantees free speech and freedom of the press, it does not guarantee freedom to unfairly manipulate elections.
I still remember many Christmases ago when they were running public service announcements about the breaking up of the Bell system, showing people preparing for Christmas and worrying about whether they would get to hear from everyone, then showing that nothing would change. I think we are long past the time when the government should step in and break things up to keep too much power from accumulating in the hands of too few people and monopolies from wielding inappropriate amounts of influence. Unfortunately, since one party alone benefits from this, and that party is the preferred party of the monopolies, it hasn’t moved forward.
Frankly, I think it’s more urgent that these monopolies be broken up than the Bell monopoly and the cable monopolies. In the days of the Bell Monopoly, the Monopoly just meant that everybody had one phone somewhere in their house and if it needed service, the system got to you when they got to you. The same with the cable systems, it just meant that if your cable box went on the fritz, the system would get to you when they got to you and you really had no choice because there was no value sitting on the phone and listening to muzak for 10 minutes before the company would drop the call anyway. It was annoying, but it didn’t mean your freedom was being hollowed out. This situation means that our freedom is being hollowed out and elections are becoming simply referenda to ratify the status quo and keep the Washington establishment in place while they stuff their pockets at the nation’s expense.
All the way back in 2016, I was looking for some good white sheets on Alarm Rationalization, the methodology in accordance with ISA 18.2 by which process automation alarms are given priority and justification in control systems. The only words I used in the Google search were those two: “alarm” and “rationalization”. Ethics Alarms was the #2 hit on that search. That is how I found Ethics Alarms in the very first place.
I personally have seen the effects of Google favoring websites and search results that favor the narratives Google favors. This has occurred even on Google’s search engine for scholarly papers. Unless you are absolutely specific on the name of the paper, if it doesn’t fit Google’s preferences, the paper is buried pages down, if you can find it at all. And that is hugely problematic because I believe most people will not go more than a couple pages into a Google search. I know if I have to go that far, I need to stop and redo my query terms.
This is one more piece in the realm of fears and concerns that the conservatives in the nation possess. As a reminder, that list is as follows:
1. The Left controls the mainstream media.
2. The Left controls the public schools.
3. The Left controls social media.
4. The Left controls higher education.
5. The Left controls the IRS.
6. The Left controls the FBI.
7. The Left controls banking.
8. The Left controls research funding.
9. The Left controls entertainment institutions like Hollywood and Disney.
10. The Left controls a large chunk of the judiciary.
11. The Left currently controls the Senate.
12. The Left currently controls the Presidency and all its executive powers.
Now we can add the the Left controls the flow of information through search engines. DuckDuckGo and others are fine, but the vast majority of people use Google, just as the majority of people use mainstream media for news, public schools and universities for education, social media for interaction, and so on.
While I’m sure there are plenty of objections to this list, the point is less about its accuracy in reality and more that it is the perception of conservatives. Conservatives (at least the vocal ones) believe that they are being sidelined and forced out of the public square. The consistent narrative from the Left is that anything conservatives believe is wrong and should be repressed and eradicated without any debate. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the justification, “would you really give a platform to a flat-earther?” By that, of course, is meant that there are beliefs out there so obviously at odds with what we know, there is no credible justification for believing them, and conservative beliefs fall into that category.
What conservatives fear is that they will no longer have any means of defending themselves through the standard institutions. They fear that they will no longer have any means of even making a living. The Left doesn’t have power over all corporations, but the DEI initiatives (which fortunately seem to be backfiring to some extent) have wormed their way into so many businesses, and while they come with such nice-sounding platitudes, such as “hate has no place at our business” and “we want everyone to feel welcome and appreciated”, in reality they are tools that make it easy to rid companies of anyone who isn’t lockstep with progressive values. Conservative businesses and organizations have experienced the weight of the IRS and banking institutions placing extreme pressure on them to back down from conservative values or risking auditing and de-banking.
The problem with Google slanting searches seems less insidious than some of these other issues, but the flow of information is important. We have an unprecedented access to the sum total knowledge of mankind, so that in just a few seconds we can gather facts about Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, about the Han Dynasty or Attila the Hun. We can search for tips on how to plant a garden, take care of a particular pest, or fix a washing machine. We can look up encyclopedia articles, scholarly papers, news clippings, and on, and on, and on. But in all of this, if the algorithms are tweaked to make certain information unavailable, or at least less prevalent, that steers the public consciousness. We like to believe we’re a data-driven society, and being able to call up something that justifies our beliefs with a quick Google search is a great tool to win an argument. But if Google actually can’t be trusted to present the data as is, then what people find when they use a Google search might not actually be the full story.
Make it difficult to find any contrary analysis to a particular hot topic, and a preferred position gets the benefit of people reading all the evidence for that position. Those who support the contrary then struggle to find the contrary analyses, and it shuts them down in conversation and advocacy. It can even make them doubt themselves. It keeps them from gathering together to make a larger voice. And it is insidious, because it is very difficult to prove. Is it the case that there isn’t information out there that defends my position, or is it the case that the information is being suppressed? Everyone keeps saying I’m crazy because the information really isn’t out there, and suggesting it is being suppressed is a conspiracy theory. So maybe I really am falling for a right-wing conspiracy theory? Maybe I need to bias my opinion a little more to the mainstream option just so I can keep my voice heard?
That’s a COTD if I ever saw one.
Second.
A quick addendum to what I wrote earlier.
The biggest issue with the elimination of an entire political voice, be it liberal or conservative, is that we need different perspectives. Ideas are honed by being challenged. Work is improved by someone else inspecting it. That’s why we have peer review and editors.
When a political voice is suppressed, it actually hurts both parties. I think it is obvious that if the Left truly discounts, shut outs, and squelches conservative objections, it gives the Left free rein to uncritically engage in any idea they happen to conceive. The Left needs to listen to objections from conservatives, not because conservatives are right, but because those objections help hone the Left’s ideas. In the model proposed by Extradimensional Cephalopod, in which the argument is about earnestly debating challenges to a proposition (and not simply trying to shoot the proposition down), unworkable ideas can be genuinely evaluated as unworkable, and maybe that leads to ideas that might actually work. Flaws can be addressed before implementation demonstrates in real time the terrible consequences of those flaws. But even in more hostile engagements, the sheer fact of defending their positions strengthens the Left’s positions.
But in the lack of engagement, it isn’t solely the Left that suffers. If conservatives feel they are not being heard by the Left, then they stop engaging with the Left, and thus they are vulnerable to latching onto ideas without the critical examination and objections the Left raises. They distrust everything the Left has to say, and that allows uncritical conspiracy theories to flourish, just like all kinds of undesirable things flourish in the dark. The only real solution is to bring those ideas into the light and critically evaluate them.
While I agree with you in principle, I don’t think the Left cares about whether their positions are correct or not. It about power ad the wielding of power. The Left doesn’t want debate. The Left wants control – look at “micro-aggressions” and “hate speech”. What do those terms really mean? The Left will declare hateful and capable of suppression anything that goes against or challenges its power structure, which is the bureaucratic state – the Deep State. It is not surprise that those who challenge the Left’s narrative are attacked with the hope of obliteration. Look at Stalinist Soviet Union and Mao’s China. Anything that does not openly embrace the party is declared a threat to the society.
jvb
I find this interesting for a variety of reasons.
First, there’s nothing new here. Epstein’s analysis came in the immediate aftermath of the ‘20 election. Reportage from then is all over (wait for it) Google. So why is it a stand-alone story now? I could understand it as background for a subsequent critique, but that doesn’t seem to be happening, at least not yet.
It’s also purely speculative. We’re not talking about changing people’s votes after the fact, or adding or subtracting votes directly. This is about changing voters’ perception of who is the better candidate prior to their voting, and there is no conceivable way of determining the extent to which Google’s alleged manipulation affected voters’ choices. We can speculate, but it starts getting really mushy when we start suggesting numbers. Of course, virtually every part of society is engulfed in a quantification fetish, so I suppose that part is understandable.
Even assuming the allegations have a foundation, we’re looking at a phenomenon that’s been played out innumerable times by media from every political perspective. The “everybody does it” excuse may be unethical, but the fact remains that yes, everybody does it, which makes this a little less newsworthy. I’ve often referenced the year I spent in England working on my MA. You knew that what you read in the Guardian was filtered through a liberal lens, and what you read in the Telegraph was through a conservative one. But you also knew that both papers maintained integrity. We can’t say the same for any outlet, left or right, in the US in the 2020s.
It’s also true that anecdotal evidence is often misleading. I have no doubt that Jack’s blog posts are “buried” by Google, but there are multiple possible reasons for that, including good old capitalistic amorality: somebody else paid them to move their site higher on the list.
I also tried a little experiment this morning. With Jack’s permission, I have also posted things I wrote for the “Curmie’s Conjectures” series here on my own blog, as well. So I copied the title of one of those essays and plugged it into Google. The post on Ethics Alarms came up #1. The one on Curmudgeon Central, with precisely the same title, didn’t appear at all. That’s hardly evidence that conservative perspectives are being silenced at the expense of liberal ones!
I wouldn’t take on faith an assertion by PJ Media that NBA centers tend to be tall, but Epstein is a far more complicated and therefore interesting individual. His training is in psychology rather than quantitative analysis or marketing. This doesn’t discredit his critique of Google, but if the right is going to grant him omniscience, I await their agreement with him in the area of his actual specialization: for example, his claims that bisexuality is the natural norm for humans and most people claim to be straight due to social pressure rather than their lived experience.
It’s perfectly possible to be really good at one thing and really awful at another. But if Epstein is brilliant, then he’s brilliant; if he’s a wackadoodle, then he’s a wackadoodle. ‘Tis a tangled web out there, whether or not anyone is practicing to deceive. (Apologies to Sir Walter Scott.)
I paid Google to bury your blog’s post….
But seriously—I’ll pair this with Ryan’s COTD. It’s a necessary perspective, and spot on.
Agreed. Ryan and Curmie argue from different perspectives but their comments are good point-counterpoints.
jvb
I knew it! 😉