What's new

election interference?

We live in a billionaire oligarchy
We always have, from the American Revolution onwards.

I was not able to find Epstein's definition of "bias" and how it is measured. For a non-political example, I would categorize downplaying links to Autism One as responsible, not repressive.
 
We always have, from the American Revolution onwards.

I was not able to find Epstein's definition of "bias" and how it is measured. For a non-political example, I would categorize downplaying links to Autism One as responsible, not repressive.
That’s a very good question, he is referencing political bias and he has results that seem blatant and pretty easily measured. Which candidate appears first in searches, who were shown “go vote” reminders etc. I haven’t read it all yet, but I found his methodology here-
https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_2022-GOOGLE'S_TRIPLE_THREAT.pdf
 
Last edited:
That’s a very good question, he is referencing political bias and he has results that seem blatant and pretty easily measured. Which candidate appears first in searches, who were sent “go vote” reminders etc. I haven’t read it all yet, but I found his methodology here-
https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_2022-GOOGLE'S_TRIPLE_THREAT.pdf
Supposedly, Appendix II of that link. But Appendix II describes the methodology of the SEME experiment, not the methodology of determining bias. I don't deny the value of the former, but would also like the latter.

As for who were sent "Go Vote" reminders, I read the letter by Johnson/Cruz/Lee, and I agree that the difference should be explained. However, I also see several non-conspiratorial explanation are possible.
 
IMO Google is the biggest threat to our "democracy"- This internal google video called the seflish ledger is so disturbing

Disagree. Google's use of democracy is a threat to our republic. Democracy is their bought and paid for tool to control the people. With democracy, they don't need to fool everyone to control everyone. They only need to fool 50% +1 and if you dare step out of line then you are labeled an enemy of democracy. Everyone repeating that we are a democracy and 'X' is a threat to democracy is repeating what Google is telling them to repeat. For those like Google, it is far easier to sway popular opinion than it is to change the US Constitution so it is in their interest to make popular opinion the source of power.
 
Disagree. Google's use of democracy is a threat to our republic. Democracy is their bought and paid for tool to control the people. With democracy, they don't need to fool everyone to control everyone. They only need to fool 50% +1 and if you dare step out of line then you are labeled an enemy of democracy. Everyone repeating that we are a democracy and 'X' is a threat to democracy is repeating what Google is telling them to repeat. For those like Google, it is far easier to sway popular opinion than it is to change the US Constitution so it is in their interest to make popular opinion the source of power.
I guess the question might be should people be allowed to have control over their own thoughts? Is having control over our own thoughts a democratic principle or is it something else?
 
The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance -

He mentions political bias again here in this video and he simply says "results that favor one candidate over another" seems like a very simple definition of political bias.
 
Disagree. Google's use of democracy is a threat to our republic. Democracy is their bought and paid for tool to control the people. With democracy, they don't need to fool everyone to control everyone. They only need to fool 50% +1 and if you dare step out of line then you are labeled an enemy of democracy. Everyone repeating that we are a democracy and 'X' is a threat to democracy is repeating what Google is telling them to repeat. For those like Google, it is far easier to sway popular opinion than it is to change the US Constitution so it is in their interest to make popular opinion the source of power.
Lol

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
I guess the question might be should people be allowed to have control over their own thoughts? Is having control over our own thoughts a democratic principle or is it something else?
Humans have never had control over their own thoughts. We are always influenced by our surroundings.
 
Robert Esptein has been anti-google foe yeara after they shut him down for having malware on his website. His hate for Google goes wells beyond this. Not to say that he does not make good points, clearly Google does a lot to effect elections and it is all currently legal.

The solution proposed is scary too. Big brother types monitoring web traffic basically.

The only solution is to shut down the internet.
 
Robert Esptein has been anti-google foe yeara after they shut him down for having malware on his website. His hate for Google goes wells beyond this. Not to say that he does not make good points, clearly Google does a lot to effect elections and it is all currently legal.

The solution proposed is scary too. Big brother types monitoring web traffic basically.

The only solution is to shut down the internet.
I like the quote that there are no solutions only trade offs. I think we should be frantically looking for other potential options.
 

As I have been saying going all the way back to the very first post in the thread I made about the subject, the United States is a democratic republic. At the 8:31 mark in your linked video the lawyer says "Democratic Republics: Most modern nations, including the United States, are democratic republics." Those insisting the United States is a democracy should all get the word 'SHEEP' tattooed across their forehead. It is technically wrong and an insidious piece of propaganda designed replace individual thought with group think. It equates the Overton window to morality and nonconformity to sin.

We are, at least for now, a democratic republic. You do you and no step on snek.
 
As I have been saying going all the way back to the very first post in the thread I made about the subject, the United States is a democratic republic. At the 8:31 mark in your linked video the lawyer says "Democratic Republics: Most modern nations, including the United States, are democratic republics." Those insisting the United States is a democracy should all get the word 'SHEEP' tattooed across their forehead. It is technically wrong and an insidious piece of propaganda designed replace individual thought with group think. It equates the Overton window to morality and nonconformity to sin.

We are, at least for now, a democratic republic. You do you and no step on snek.
So we're NOT a Constitutional Republic?
 
So we're NOT a Constitutional Republic?
We are a federal democratic constitutional republic. You could call us a federal republic, or a constitutional republic, or democratic republic and not be wrong. Our legislative branch is a representative democracy but that branch is only a piece of the government and so it would be technically incorrect to call the United States a representative democracy because the judicial branch definitely is not and the executive branch is currently a weird hybrid. Those arguing the United States is a representative democracy nearly always falsely point to the legislative branch as if it were the whole government.
 
As I have been saying going all the way back to the very first post in the thread I made about the subject, the United States is a democratic republic. At the 8:31 mark in your linked video the lawyer says "Democratic Republics: Most modern nations, including the United States, are democratic republics." Those insisting the United States is a democracy should all get the word 'SHEEP' tattooed across their forehead. It is technically wrong and an insidious piece of propaganda designed replace individual thought with group think. It equates the Overton window to morality and nonconformity to sin.

We are, at least for now, a democratic republic. You do you and no step on snek.
As "democracy" is used in modern political parlance, we are a democracy.
 
Top