Election Interference

[Bootstrap]

Interesting question: what happens if he is convicted of a felony related to the insurrection before the election? During the election? If he wins and he is convicted before assuming office? I assume he would be shielded once he assumes office, if elected. I assume any impeachment proceeding based on evidence of felonies related to insurrection would be decided strictly along party lines, and he would not be removed from office.

What happens is that the American people will have unwisely chosen a leader who's own personal failings and troubles will distract from the job of effectively running the government and leading the country. And it will be a long four years until that mistake can be remedied.

All of the legal solutions to an out-of-control and amoral president have such a high bar as to be effectively out of reach (impeachment, the 25th Amendment). So there really isn't a political solution other than waiting until the next election.

Elections have consequences.

I agree with you. And there isn't a legal solution, either.

Still, the Supreme Court had to make a decision, and I think it was good for them to make a unanimous decision. We need to know what the rules are. Going back to the OP, it really is similar to the rules about counting votes, as Moses implied. Both candidates should graciously accept the decision of the court. Just as both candidates should graciously accept the results of the last election.

As should we all. Without promoting political factions and political enmity.

[Robert]

https://www.wnd.com/2024/03/study-googl ... -41-times/

A new study confirms Google, the gorilla in the room regarding internet searches, has interfered in American elections 41 times in recent years.

It is the work of the Media Research Center that was revealed in a report by Fox News.

Dan Schneider, MRC's Free Speech America vide president, and Gabriela Pariseau, editor, said in a summary, "MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice."

Their report continued, "From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its 'great strength and resources and reach' to advance its leftist values. Google’s outsized influence on information technology, the body politic and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America’s elections."

[Ken]

https://www.wnd.com/2024/03/study-googl ... -41-times/

A new study confirms Google, the gorilla in the room regarding internet searches, has interfered in American elections 41 times in recent years.

It is the work of the Media Research Center that was revealed in a report by Fox News.

Dan Schneider, MRC's Free Speech America vide president, and Gabriela Pariseau, editor, said in a summary, "MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice."

Their report continued, "From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its 'great strength and resources and reach' to advance its leftist values. Google’s outsized influence on information technology, the body politic and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America’s elections."

That is a report prepared by FOX News.

I hope the irony of FOX news accusing another media outlet of bias is not lost on anyone. Didn't FOX news recently settle a defamation lawsuit for around $800 million related to misinformation and bias about the 2020 election?

And if you dig down into the things that they are talking about it is incredibly trivial stuff. For example, in one of those 41 instances they are upset that Google didn't censor negative search engine results about Rick Santorum way back in 2008 and in the same sentence they contrast that against a completely separate topic related to Hillary Clinton (auto-fill of search terms) 8 years later in 2016.

[temporal1]

a google search discredits google criticism?

[Ken]

a google search discredits google criticism?

I didn’t do any google searches. I just clicked through to the actual article in the link that Robert posted and found out that it was a Fox News “study” and that their examples were very unpersuasive. For example trying to demonstrate a liberal bias by comparing completely different incidents (or non-incidents) of completely different things 8 years apart as if they were comparable examples of unequal treatment.

[Robert]

That is a report prepared by FOX News.

It is the work of the Media Research Center that was revealed in a report by Fox News.

It may use Dr. Epstein's research or it may be independent from it. It did not say in the article. The Twitter Files also validate much of this.

[temporal1]

That is a report prepared by FOX News.

It is the work of the Media Research Center that was revealed in a report by Fox News.

It may use Dr. Epstein's research or it may be independent from it. It did not say in the article. The Twitter Files also validate much of this.

Not an isolated one-off topic:
P.85 / New York Post / viewtopic.php?t=4713&start=840

[Ken]

That is a report prepared by FOX News.

It is the work of the Media Research Center that was revealed in a report by Fox News.

It may use Dr. Epstein's research or it may be independent from it. It did not say in the article. The Twitter Files also validate much of this.

Oh, so this outfit run by Brent Bozell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center They are even less credible than Fox News.

[Robert]

Direct link

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free- ... tions-2008

In 2008, Google endorsed the radical, young Sen. Obama and censored support for Sen. Clinton. Journalist Simon Owens reported at the time that the tech giant suspended the accounts of writers who wrote pro-Clinton blogs critical of Obama. “[N]early all of [the censored bloggers] had three things in common,” Owens wrote. “Most were pro-Hillary Clinton blogs, all were anti-Barack Obama, and several were listed on justsaynodeal.com, an anti-Obama website.”
Google allowed users to smear then-leading GOP candidate for president Rick Santorum. Google refused to correct a “Google bomb” that smeared Santorum. Google “bombing” used to be a way for users to manipulate Google’s algorithm and associate websites and names with undesirable search terms. Google Search would connect the sites and terms if enough websites placed the same hyperlink over the same term or terms. The Big Tech company previously claimed that it had ended the popular internet pranks and had even corrected the issue when it impacted the White House’s webpage for Obama. But when Santorum’s team brought the issue to Google’s attention, the platform flat-out refused to resolve it, once again favoring Obama.

In 2016, Google employed both its algorithm and its “partners” in futile attempts to push Clinton over the finish line. One study by SourceFed found that Google’s algorithm excluded potentially damaging autofill results for searches inquiring about Clinton’s alleged crimes and possible indictment during her scandalous tenure as Secretary of State. Google hid her flaws and instead suggested that users search for things like “Hillary Clinton crime reform” and “Hillary Clinton India” but did not do the same for other contentious searches for candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The platform also worked with “partners” to bolster Latino votes, in the hopes of propping up Clinton, according to internal emails uncovered by then-Fox News primetime host Tucker Carlson. A leaked email chain showed one employee explaining how Google made a “silent donation” by working with its partner Voto Latino to pay for Latino voters to get rides to the polls in “key states.” The tech giant also “helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides.” These and similar methods of election interference and censorship likely contributed to the 2.6 million votes that Google shifted in 2016, according to data scientist and research psychologist Robert Epstein.
Just as the election categorically changed the country's political temperature, 2016 changed things at Google. Shortly after the election, at a company-wide meeting, Google’s CFO Ruth Porat promised Google employees that the company would use its “great strength and resources and reach” to advance its leftist values. The company kept that promise, and after 2016, Google’s censorship grew in scale.

Researchers uncovered clear evidence of election interference in 2018. Research showed Google’s “significant pro-liberal bias” would be “enough, quite easily, to have flipped all three congressional districts in Orange County from Republican to Democrat.” Indeed, all three flipped blue. That same election cycle, Google labeled “Nazism” as one of the California GOP’s ideologies when users searched for the political party. AllSides, a firm that rates news outlets for political bias, found that just five percent of the stories that Google linked on its Google News homepage came from right-leaning media outlets. In turn, the platform pushed 15 times as much content from media outlets that AllSides identifies as left-leaning. Similarly, a search in the News tab for “Trump” displayed more than seven times as much content from media outlets that AllSides labels as left than those it deems as from the right on the first page of results.

In 2020, Google picked its favored and disfavored candidates and continued its biased censorship spree. During the 2020 Democratic primary, The tech giant disabled then-presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s Google Ads account just as she became the most searched candidate following the first Democratic Party primary debate. “Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard said responding to the incident in a statement to The New York Times. The tech giant was also accused of blocking GOP fundraising emails from reaching users’ inboxes and sending out “go vote” reminders only to Democrats. These, and similar methods of election interference, likely contributed to the at least six million votes that Google shifted in 2020, according to research.

In 2022, Google placed its thumb on the scale by censoring candidates in key races, and it continued censoring media. An MRC Free Speech America study found that Google buried 83 percent of the Republican campaign websites for the most competitive Senate races. Ten of the 12 candidates did not make the top 6 search results and 7 did not appear on the first page of search results at all. In similar searches, MRC Free Speech America examined how Google treated 10 politicians known for criticizing Big Tech, either legislatively or vocally. Researchers found that Google buried the campaign websites of all 10 politicians and seven of them did not appear at all on the first page of the results. MRC Free Speech America analyzed searches conducted in Georgia during the 2022 Senate run-off race between Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) and Herschel Walker (R). In a very telling revelation, Google’s results favored Warnock in a swing precinct where greater proportions of undecided voters likely reside. The platform scrubbed Walker’s website from the first page of results altogether. AllSides also once again found Google News bias in 2020. The firm found that 61 percent of the stories included on the Google News homepage linked to leftist media outlets. Meanwhile, only three percent linked to right-leaning media outlets–a 20 to 1 disparity.

The 2024 election cycle is upon us, and Google has already begun interfering. MRC Free Speech America found that Google buried the campaign websites for every significant opponent of incumbent President Joe Biden (RFK, Jr. plus 15 Republican candidates). When searching for “Republican presidential campaign websites,” Google returned Democrat Mariane Williamson, but not former President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy and others.) Additionally, Google's artificial intelligence Gemini (formerly Bard) has refused to answer prompts questioning two of Biden’s biggest weaknesses: the president’s mental health and the ongoing border crisis. The chatbot instead suggested the queries were election-related, which they are. “Elections are a complex topic with fast-changing information,” Gemini claimed in response. "To make sure you have the latest and most accurate information, try Google Search.”

[Ken]

Direct link

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free- ... tions-2008

In 2008, Google endorsed the radical, young Sen. Obama and censored support for Sen. Clinton. Journalist Simon Owens reported at the time that the tech giant suspended the accounts of writers who wrote pro-Clinton blogs critical of Obama. “[N]early all of [the censored bloggers] had three things in common,” Owens wrote. “Most were pro-Hillary Clinton blogs, all were anti-Barack Obama, and several were listed on justsaynodeal.com, an anti-Obama website.”

Right there in the opening sentence there is a flat-out incorrect or untruthful statement.

Google did not endorse Senator Obama in 2008. Google didn't endorse any candidates in 2008. This is an easily checked. Eric Schmidt, who was the CEO of Google endorsed Obama which is something different. Google, in fact announced:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122446734650049199 “Eric’s endorsement of Sen. Obama was a personal matter, and as a company Google was neutral in the campaign,” said Adam Kovacevich, Google’s senior manager of global communications and public affairs. “We look forward to working with the new administration and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to keep the Internet open and to promote economic growth.”

Not to mention calling Obama "radical?" Obama was very much an institutionalist, the opposite of radical. As for the rest of the paragraph. The New York Times reported on the Hillary blogger thing at the time back in 2008. Even the affected blogs didn't accuse Google of censoring them. It appears they were flagged by a Spam filter. No one at the time, including the bloggers themselves accused Google of consciously interfering with their blogging in some sort of attempt to skew the election to Obama. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/tech ... 39624.html

Neither of those two examples actually show Google interfering in an election. If they can't get through the very first paragraph of their report without two such obvious distortions, how credible can they actually be?

Out of curiosity I looked up two more claims made in the report. That Google disabled Tulsi Gabbard's add account and that they were suppressing search results of 2024 GOP presidential candidates web sites. With respect to Tulsi Gabbard. Her account was only disabled for several hours during one single day until Google fixed it. It was triggered by a fraud alert that Google quickly fixed. She sued Google claiming bias but her suit was laughed out of court: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... ensorship/ And the thing about search results of GOP presidential candidate web sites was just flat out false. It was something reported by 2nd hand Breitbart with no evidence and was simply false. No one else could replicate the same result. So two more of their 41 examples that fail the slightest scrutiny.

Clearly they just expect right wing media sites to uncritically run with the story rather than checking it. Which is, in fact, what is happening. One of the oldest plays in the playbook.