Hillary Clinton woke up Monday and forgot that it’s 2019 and that she’s still on the losing team. The failed Democrat candidate of years-gone-by jumped on Twitter and took a swinging miss at President Trump’s tweet in which he said, “Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election! This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought!”
Clinton replied: “The debunked study you’re referring to was based on 21 undecided voters. For context that’s about half the number of people associated with your campaign who have been indicted.”
The debunked study you’re referring to was based on 21 undecided voters. For context that’s about half the number of people associated with your campaign who have been indicted. https://t.co/0zHnWvGjSv
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 19, 2019
Debunked? By whom? Oh … yes, Google denied it. Isn’t that a shocker? Sit down, Hillary.
Avowed liberal and Clinton supporter Dr. Robert Epstein, of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, has repeatedly claimed that Google used what he described as the “Search Engine Manipulation Effect” to sway more than 2.6 million votes toward Clinton in 2016, and he has warned Congress that big tech will “go all out” to manipulate as many as 15 million votes in 2020 toward their chosen candidate.
A scan of liberal propaganda outlets found nothing that would qualify as debunking Epstein’s study.
Mother Jones tried hard to do so and found three sympathetic academics, characterizing them as being “suspicious of Epstein’s research.”
For example, Mother Jones wrote:
Katherine Haenschen, a communications professor at Virginia Tech University, said that apart from Epstein’s work, most research suggests online influence has a limited effect on election outcomes.
“When Dr. Epstein says the effects are ‘huge’ and ‘more powerful’ than anything he has ever seen, I respectfully suggest that he needs to read the political science literature before making that claim,” she said. “Large-scale digital mobilization has basically failed to deliver sizable effects in terms of persuasion or turnout.”
“Dr. Epstein needs to be careful with his language on such a fraught topic,” warns Haenschen.
Nonetheless, Mother Jones grudgingly added, “Academics did note that Google’s broad lack of transparency about the algorithms powering its search engine and the company’s ability to manipulate users’ results, the issue underlying Epstein’s concerns, is an issue worth scrutinizing.”
Doing his best to defend Clinton’s position, The Washington Post’s Philip Bump opined on Monday: “This is one claim from one person that, as far as I can tell, hasn’t been peer-reviewed or replicated. On its surface, it’s dubious, as is the methodology underlying it. It’s the sort of thing that people in positions of authority – such as, say, a senator or a president – might be cautious about spreading.”
In other words, there has been no “debunking” of Epstein’s white paper entitled “A Method for Detecting Bias in Search Rankings, with Evidence of Systematic Bias Related to the 2016 Presidential Election.”
In fact, Epstein’s credentials are impressive and the left has had a hard time shooting him down. He is a psychologist, professor, and author who earned his Ph.D. in psychology at Harvard. He was editor in chief of Psychology Today and he founded the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.
Throughout the 2016 election season, Epstein warned of the possibility that Google was manipulating its search algorithm in favor of Clinton, with a resulting impact of millions of votes being affected.
In a 2017 article, Epstein blasted bias and actions by companies such as Google and Facebook to suppress “fake news” through their hidden algorithms, noting “the dangers in allowing big technology companies to decide which news stories are legitimate.”
Last month, Epstein testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, claiming his research shows that Google alone could manipulate “upwards of 15 million votes” in 2020 and he recommended that Google’s search index be made public. He stated that “2.6 million is a rock bottom minimum” for how many votes Google probably swung toward Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, and that “the range is between 2.6 million and up to 10.4 million votes.”
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
Victor Rantala is an Army vet who lives in Minnesota, he is a former intelligence analyst and business owner, and is an NRA Life member who is officially retired but has yet to slow his roll.
- NJ school teacher yells at students she hopes they die ‘painful death’ from coronavirus for playing at park - April 27, 2020
- Trump’s briefing-alternative included bold counteroffensive: ‘No respect for people running Fox News’ - April 27, 2020
- Candace Owens questions next moves in COVID19 strategy: ‘None of this makes any sense’ - April 26, 2020
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
