It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary[W:73]

[rocket88]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

More insults... You seriously need to expand your horizons.

Where was the insult? If you found that insulting, you are one thin-skinned person.

 

[azgreg]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

Pork chops?

Like I said. Accurate. I love Asian pork chops.

 

[beefheart]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

FAIL

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/10/2125238/theres-no-evidence-that-google-is-manipulating-searches-to-help-hillary-clinton

 

[AGENT J]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

The issue isn't about search results, it's about manipulating the auto-complete function to omit the most popular searches, that just happen to be negative toward Hillary Clinton.

.

As already factually proven, nothign is being "omitted" based on Hilary Clinton. Its dishonest or topical ignorance to claim otherwise.

 

[Redress]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

Another interesting thing I just noticed, and which shows you how poorly researched the video in the OP is, if you type in "Hillary Clinton cri", it works as the video shows. However, if you do the more common "clinton cri", it does not recognize it as a name and the first autocomplete is "Clinton criminal".

And all 3 return asian pork for "asian por". I am oddly disappointed in that...

 

[Excon]

Google is manipulating

Already posted AND debunked

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-...349-did-google-manipulate-search-hillary.html

No.

The manipulation has been confirmed and explained.
It has nothing specifically to do with Hillary, but it is still manipulation.

"The autocomplete algorithm is designed to avoid completing a search for a person’s name with terms that are offensive or disparaging," wrote Tamar Yehoshua, vice president of product management for Google's search, in the post. "We made this change a while ago following feedback that Autocomplete too often predicted offensive, hurtful or inappropriate queries about people. This filter operates according to the same rules no matter who the person is," Yehoshua said.

Google defends its search engine against charges it favors Clinton​

 

[Excon]

Lame reply by Tanngrisnir

How flat out stupid and paranoid. I just went to Google, typed in "Hillary Clinton indic...." and up came all sorts of links relevant to 'indictment', indictment for emails, etc....

What a lame reply, showing you are not even paying attention to the topic.
It is about the auto complete function, not search results.

It's autocomplete. Just complete it yourself if you think it's manipulation.
Google isn't a public service, by the way. Nor is it a monopoly, if you don't like their service.

QUIET, you!

You'll ruin the manufactured outrage and spoil the false narrative completely!

Oh look, another lame reply totally irrelevant and even oblivious to the facts of the topic.

---

It's autocomplete. Just complete it yourself if you think it's manipulation.
Google isn't a public service, by the way. Nor is it a monopoly, if you don't like their service.

Why you think you need to state the obvious is beyond me.

Regardless.
A Google representative says they did this as a response from feedback they received. (Which appears to be from those who are weak minded.)
This report, while not accurate in it's assessment of that manipulation, it still exposes that it is manipulation. Google might want to consider the feed back from this as well.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Google is manipulating

1.)No.

2.)It has nothing specifically to do with Hillary, but it is still manipulation.

1.) factually YES
2.) exactly 100% factually debunked just like i said LMAO
OP and article claims its based on hilary or for Hilary that is 100% factual false and debunked.

 

[Excon]

AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

1.) factually YES
2.) exactly 100% factually debunked just like i said LMAO
OP and article claims its based on hilary or for Hilary that is 100% factual false and debunked.

Wrong.
The overall context of the presentation is that of a question. Hence the question mark. Duh!

The manipulation of the auto complete feature was proven by the questioner and a Google representative confirmed and explained it.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Wrong.
The overall context is the presentation is that of a question. Hence the question mark. Duh!

The manipulation was proven by the questioner and a Google representative confirmed and explained it.

My post is 100% accurate and your strawman falls flat on its face and is destroyed by facts and the google representative proves it.
The OP has been 100% factually debunked. No amount of posting lies will change that fact.

Its this simple
Question:
Did google manipulate searches for or in favor of hillary?

Answer:
100% no

From the OP "Common search terms associated with Clinton appear to have been scrubbed from Google as the tech giant has been accused of manipulating its autocomplete results to favor the Democratic presidential candidate."

is that true? nope LMAO

Facts remains the OP was 100% debunked and my post and its context stands
Your post and strawman, gets destroyed, fails and facts win again

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

My post is 100% accurate and your strawman falls flat on its face and is destroyed by facts and the google representative proves it.
The OP has been 100% factually debunked. No amount of posting lies will change that fact.

Its this simple
Question:
Did google manipulate searches for or in favor of hillary?

Answer:
100% no

From the OP "Common search terms associated with Clinton appear to have been scrubbed from Google as the tech giant has been accused of manipulating its autocomplete results to favor the Democratic presidential candidate."

is that true? nope LMAO

Facts remains the OP was 100% debunked and my post and its context stands
Your post and strawman, gets destroyed, fails and facts win again

Wrong AGENT J.

You do not "debunk" a question. You answer it.
That is what was done.
The manipulation was confirmed and explained.

That you do not understand that is your own damn problem.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Wrong AGENT J.

You do not "debunk" a question. You answer it.
That is what was done.
The manipulation was confirmed and explained.

That you do not understand that is your own damn problem.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks
Facts win again
opcorn2:

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman

The facts did win and as usual you are wrong again AGENT J.

As you were already informed;

You do not "debunk" a question. You answer it.
That is what was done.
The manipulation was confirmed and explained.​

Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks

This is your typical deflection by straw argument.
Again.

The manipulation has been confirmed and explained.
It has nothing specifically to do with Hillary, but it is still manipulation. ← This part explaining exactly what google confirmed and explained.

"The autocomplete algorithm is designed to avoid completing a search for a person’s name with terms that are offensive or disparaging," wrote Tamar Yehoshua, vice president of product management for Google's search, in the post. "We made this change a while ago following feedback that Autocomplete too often predicted offensive, hurtful or inappropriate queries about people. This filter operates according to the same rules no matter who the person is," Yehoshua said.

Google defends its search engine against charges it favors Clinton​

And also again.

The overall context is the presentation is that of a question. Hence the question mark. Duh!

The manipulation was proven by the questioner and a Google representative confirmed and explained it.​

Nothing you said refutes this in any way.
The auto complete was being manipulated. That was confirmed and explained.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

The facts did win and as usual you are wrong again AGENT J.

As you were already informed;

You do not "debunk" a question. You answer it.
That is what was done.
The manipulation was confirmed and explained.​

This is your typical deflection by straw argument.
Again.

The manipulation has been confirmed and explained.
It has nothing specifically to do with Hillary, but it is still manipulation. ← This part explaining exactly what google confirmed and explained.

"The autocomplete algorithm is designed to avoid completing a search for a person’s name with terms that are offensive or disparaging," wrote Tamar Yehoshua, vice president of product management for Google's search, in the post. "We made this change a while ago following feedback that Autocomplete too often predicted offensive, hurtful or inappropriate queries about people. This filter operates according to the same rules no matter who the person is," Yehoshua said.

Google defends its search engine against charges it favors Clinton​

And also again.

The overall context is the presentation is that of a question. Hence the question mark. Duh!

The manipulation was proven by the questioner and a Google representative confirmed and explained it.​

Nothing you said refutes this in any way.
The auto complete was being manipulated. That was confirmed and explained.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks
Facts win again

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks

You do not debunk a question.

The facts clearly won again and show you to be wrong.

Thank you again for showing just that.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

You do not debunk a question.

The facts clearly won again and show you to be wrong.

Thank you again for showing just that.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks
Facts win again
opcorn2:

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks

The facts already won AGENT J, you were wrong.
Deflecting with your straw argument will never change that.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

The facts already won AGENT J, you were wrong.
Deflecting with your straw argument will never change that.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks
Facts win again

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks

You are actin like a broken record AGENT J. You were already shown to be wrong and are only projecting.
Nothing changes that.
Your instance of posting your irrelevant question just confirms it, especially as the Hillary portion was already addressed in previous replies.

You can continue to project and deflect all you want, it wont change the facts that you are wrong and are projecting.



And btw, that you do not know that you answer a question and not debunk it, is hilarious.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

You are actin like a broken record AGENT J. You were already shown to be wrong and are only projecting.
Nothing changes that.
Your instance of posting your irrelevant question just confirms it, especially as the Hillary portion was already addressed in previous replies.

You can continue to project and deflect all you want, it wont change the facts that you are wrong and are projecting.



And btw, that you do not know that you answer a question and not debunk it, is hilarious.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks
Facts win again
opcorn2:

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

opcorn2:

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Prove otherwise.
Facts win again

 

[AGENT J]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Prove otherwise.
Facts win again

And another dodge thats what I thought!!! LMAO
Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks
There will be no response until you do so
Your post gets destroyed your lie and straman fails and facts win again
opcorn2:

 

[Excon]

Re: AGENT J being 100% factually wrong again.

And another dodge thats what I thought!!! LMAO
Facts > than your failed and factually proven wrong posted lie and strawman
Disagree? Please post ONE fact that proves this was for Hillary, thanks
There will be no response until you do so
Your post gets destroyed your lie and straman fails and facts win again
popcorn2

Another expected deflection/dodge from being wrong.
How much you want to bet you keep doing that?


Facts > you failed and were factually proven wrong and posted a strawman and just continue to spew lies.

The over-all context was that of a question. You answer questions like the Google rep did. Disagree? Prove otherwise.

Yay, facts win again and nothing you have said changes that.


The manipulation was confirmed and explained.

That you do not understand that is your own problem, a severe one at that.

 

[BitterPill]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

Are you related to Rocket?

Or do you just subscribe to the same childish tactics that his political ideology dictates?

Are you sure you aren't engaged with the childish tactics?

 

[rocket88]

Re: It appears that Google is manipulating searches to protect Hillary

Another interesting thing I just noticed, and which shows you how poorly researched the video in the OP is, if you type in "Hillary Clinton cri", it works as the video shows. However, if you do the more common "clinton cri", it does not recognize it as a name and the first autocomplete is "Clinton criminal".

And all 3 return asian pork for "asian por". I am oddly disappointed in that...

Honestly "Asian pork" could go either way.