A study of the midterm election results by the former editor of Psychology Today found that the red wave might have been blunted largely by Google. The study accuses the search engine giant of using “ephemeral experiences,” or subtle manipulation techniques such as biased search results and targeted voting reminders to switch as many as 80 million votes to Democrats across the nation. In very tight elections, shifting just one percent of the vote or less could have determined the winner.
Of course, there are those who will deny that Google is biased. They say if its search results tend to lean left, that’s just the algorithm (is it a coincidence that tech companies always deny liberal bias by pointing to a word that actually has Al Gore’s name in it?)
For instance, this article has a list of six alternatives to Google, such as DuckDuckGo.
It notes that while most people don’t think Google is politically biased, one out of four conservatives do. I’m surprised it’s that low. One could argue that that’s just a testament to how well Google hides its bias, except from people who are sensitized to notice it. The article shows how a Google search for Andy Ngo returns articles from lefty sites like Rolling Stone slamming him as a rightwing troll, while DuckDuckGo returns biographical info and a New York Post article about his invaluable reporting on the violent radical left group, Antifa.
This obvious bias is explained away by claiming that Google’s “Al Gore Rhythm” (editor’s note: Al Gore has no rhythm) simply links to the most “authoritative sources,” defined by how many links there are to that site from other “authoritative sources.” I bet you can spot the problem immediately: if you classify other biased leftist media sites as “authoritative sources” and not conservative news sites, then you create a biased feedback loop of leftists linking back to other leftists, and that inflates a bubble of bias that’s falsely cited as evidence of reliability.
But anyone with common sense knows that the last thing in the world you could call Rolling Stone is an “authoritative source.” Never mind all the fake news they’ve pushed recently, just look at their music lists, like “The 200 Greatest Singers of All Time,” where Bob Dylan ranks higher than Frank Sinatra. It’s clear that they don’t even know the one subject they’re supposed to know.
So if you don’t want search results that come from leftists (but you’re assured they’re not biased because other leftists say they aren’t), then skedaddle away from Google and use another search engine.