Search engine manipulation effect: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:55, 28 February 2016

Revision as of 22:55, 28 February 2016

Line 2:

The study estimated that this could change the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of national elections worldwide.

{{toclimit|3}}

== Scenarios ==

Line 21:

Divorcees, Republicans and those who reported low familiarity with the candidates were among the most subject to the effect, while participants who were better informed, married or reported annual household income between $40,000 and $50,000 were harder to sway. Moderate Republicans were the most susceptible, increasing support for the favored candidate by 80%.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Internet search engines may be influencing elections|url = http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2015/08/internet-search-engines-may-be-influencing-elections|first=David |last=Shultz |publisher=Science Magazine |date=August 7, 2015|accessdate = 2015-08-24}}</ref>

Slightly reducing the bias on the first result page of search results – specifically, by including one search item that favoured the &nbsp;other candidate in the third or fourth position masked the manipulation so that few or even &nbsp;no subjects noticed the bias, while still triggering the preference change.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web

| url = https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts

| title = How the internet flips elections and alters our thoughts — Robert Epstein — Aeon Essays

Line 28:

}}</ref>

On election day in 2010, Facebook sent ‘go out and vote’ reminders to more than 60 million of its users. The reminders caused about 340,000 people to vote who otherwise would not have. In &nbsp;another 2014 Facebook experiment for a period of a week, 689,000 Facebook users were sent news feeds that contained either an excess of positive terms, an excess of negative terms, or neither. Those in the first group subsequently used slightly more positive terms in their communications, while those in the second group used slightly more negative terms in their communications. &nbsp;Both experiments were conducted without the knowledge or consent of the participants.<ref name=":1" />

Later research suggested that search rankings impact virtually all issues on which people are initially undecided around the world. Search results that favour one point of view tip the opinions of those who are undecided on an issue. In another experiment, biased search results shifted people’s opinions about the value of [[Hydraulic fracturing|fracking]] by 33.9 per cent.<ref name=":1" />

==== 2016 Presidential election ====

In April 2015, [[Hillary Clinton]] hired [[Stephanie Hannon]] &nbsp;from Google to be her [[chief technology officer]] In 2015 [[Eric Schmidt]], chairman of Google's holding company started a company &nbsp;– The Groundwork – for the specific purpose of electing Clinton. [[Julian Assange]], founder of [[WikiLeaks]], called Google her ‘secret weapon’. Researchers estimated that Google could help her win the nomination and could deliver between 2.6 and 10.4 million general election votes to Clinton via SEME. No evidence documents any such effort, although since search results are ephemeral, evidence could only come via a Google [[whistleblower]] or a external [[hacker]].<ref name=":1" />

=== India ===