Forgive me if I am unimpressed with the Ted Cruz show
That seems to be just the kind of evidence he likes… completely unverifiable
Like computer climate models?
Or like about every third claim of the president… 
Project Veritas has this video showing an unnamed Google whistleblower and undercover videos:
Google took it down from YouTube.
Google and other tech giants are exempted from libel laws because they are supposed be an open forum and are not responsible for what people post or search for. Yet they use their market dominance to push their political agenda.
Not to mention it being a giant unreported campaign contribution.
Those are verifiable.
So would Epstein’s “research”…if it had done correctly, which it was not.
Trusting Project Veritas to tell the truth is like giving Captain Bligh his own fleet.
3 Likes
Unreported and unproven.
His research on Google is poorly documented at best. At worse, his 2018 paper is fraudulent. He did not make a convincing case to the Senate.
1 Like
Because you say so? You’re a Big Tech Election Interference Denier, then?
And? Let’s assume you are 100% correct, what exactly do you think is the solution?
Because the raw data he based his conclusion of a pro-Hillary google bias on, in the 2018 paper, is not fully documented. It cites another article he wrote himself, here:
The results he does show us are preempted with this statement:
If you try to replicate the searches I will show you, you will likely get different results. I don’t think that invalidates our work, but you will have to decide for yourself.
Experiments must be reproducible. It is his responsibility as a scientist to make sure that any one of us can follow the same steps and get his result. If that’s impossible, then he needs to hand over all of the collected data and documentation for examination.
(For anyone who wants to troll about climate change in this thread, here is a good contrast between real science and junk science: unlike Mr. Epstein’s work, you can get all the data from the original measurement sources, as unmolested as possible, for your own independent verification.)
That Sputnik article is his cited source for pro-Hillary bias, and has its results included in the discussion section of his 2018 paper. By doing that, he was able to claim this:
–in front of the Senate as if it had been verified by experimentation.
No because I know how said research would have to be done to prove anything.
1 Like
What he said is common sense. He did searches leading up to 2016. Clearly, if one makes the same searches today, you will not get the same search results for the same topics as three years ago. But he saved the data, and his conclusions from the 2016 data can be checked against the saved data.
He is a research psychologist of some standing. His observations from 2016 on the way search engines are giving biased results seem to have been confirmed by his 2018 results and the testimonies of present day internet users and web-site creators.
You seem desperate to dismiss the possibility of big tech election interference when you must raise these flimsy and spurious arguments aimed at convincing people not even to bother taking a closer look. Do you think the committee is wasting time and resources investigating the possibility of election manipulation by big tech.?
Self citation is one of the hallmarks of being a crank.
2 Likes
Is he both R. Epstein and E. Williams? Are you saying the E. Williams disagrees with his methods and findings?
Epstein, R., Ding., M., Mourani, C., Olson, E., Robertson, R.E., & Tran, F. (2017, April).
Multiple searches increase the impact of the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME).
Paper presented at the 97th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association,
Sacramento, CA. https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_et_al._2017-WPAMultiple_Searches_Increase_the_Impact_of%20_the_Search_Engine_Manipulation_Effe
ct.pdf
Epstein, R., Mourani, C., Olson, E., & Robertson, R.E. (2017, April). Biased search
rankings can shift opinions on a wide range of topics. Paper presented at the 97th annual
meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Sacramento, CA.
https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_et_al._2017-WPABiased_Search_Rankings_Can_Shift_Opinions_on_a_Wide_Range_of_Topics.pdf
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R.E. (2017c, June 1). A method for detecting bias in search
rankings, with evidence of systematic bias related to the 2016 presidential election. Vista,
CA: American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, White Paper no. WP17-02. Retrieved from https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-
A_Method_for_Detecting_Bias_in_Search_Rankings-AIBRT_WP-17-02_6-1-17.pdf
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R.E. (2017b, March). The Search Engine Manipulation Effect
(SEME): Understanding its power to change opinions and votes. Paper presented at the
2nd biennial meeting of the International Convention of Psychological Science, Vienna,
Austria.
11
DC.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. (2017a). Suppressing the Search Engine Manipulation
Effect (SEME). Proceedings of the ACM: Human-Computer Interaction, 1(2), Article 42.
https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_et_al-2017-
Suppressing_the_Search_Engine_Manipulation_Effect_(SEME).pdf
Epstein, R., Robertson, R., Shepherd, S., & Zhang, S. (2017, April). A method for
detecting bias in search rankings, with evidence of systematic bias related to the 2016
presidential election. Paper presented at the 97th annual meeting of the Western
Psychological Association, Sacramento, CA.
https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_et_al_2017-SUMMARY-WPAA_Method_for_Detecting_Bias_in_Search_Rankings.pdf
There are quite a few other researchers names on those presentations with his.
I meant what I said.
1 Like
His name is first.
Do you know how it works to get other names added to your research?
Do you know anything about the other “researchers”?
But it is not science.
