Google is a scam, NOT a verb.
Google critics see its Firebase tools as another squeeze play
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Some app developers say Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google is increasingly pressing them to embed code in their own products that will deepen Google’s access to data on consumers, giving the company a leg up on rivals.
The previously unreported concerns about Firebase, a set of software that Google makes available to apps, have become part of the broad investigations launched last summer by state attorneys general and the United States Department of Justice into whether Google has unlawfully stifled competition in online advertising and other businesses, two people with knowledge of the probes said this month.
The Texas attorney general’s office, which is leading the states’ investigation, and the Justice Department did not respond to requests to comment.
Google declined to comment beyond generally describing Firebase tools as optional, usable in tandem with competing services and potential revenue-boosters for apps. They spare app makers from coding basic components or having to install alternatives that can be more complex.
Embedded inside apps such as Instacart and Expedia, Firebase software plays a big role storing data, delivering notifications, logging glitches and tracking clicks.
Firebase tools give Google, the internet’s top ad seller, information on what consumers are doing inside apps that it can exploit to target ads to users, according to makers of Firebase alternatives.
“It’s about data collection and ad serving,” said Bob Lawson, founder and director of mobile software company Kumulos. “The more Google knows about users, the more helpful it can be” to advertisers.
Part of Firebase’s appeal is that it is bundled with Google’s Android Studio, the most well-known program to code apps for Google’s Android operating system. But Google over the last two years has made it difficult for apps to operate common functions without Firebase tools, the sources said.
Kyle Carline, who oversees 50 apps for the Christian media company Salem Web Network, said the increasing dependence on Google services makes him “wary because Google is the powerhouse it is.”
For instance, apps last year started needing Firebase Cloud Messaging to send push notifications. Google has said the set-up prevents apps from draining phone batteries. It told Reuters that apps have another option in Pushy, but that tool’s founder Elad Nava acknowledged that stringent Google restrictions increasingly challenge Pushy’s viability.
“There’s definitely a trend where Google is trying to get as many services into Firebase as possible and restrict developers from using other services,” Nava said.
Another Firebase tool is needed for apps to record data about their visitors in Google’s analytics service. Previously, the service accepted data from alternative tools without the need for Google code, said Craig Rouse, mobile strategy lead at mobile software company Tealium.
Most recently, Google has told apps that Firebase will significantly improve results of their Google ad campaigns, ad buyers and app makers said. It is a persuasive pitch because “Google will have a much more rich dataset” to inform when to shows ads, said Kim Cooling, director of planning at ad agency M&C Saatchi Performance.
RIVALS REACT
Some Firebase competitors said they want Android Studio to promote them, too. Google said developers are not required to use Android Studio.
Mark Piller, chief executive of rival mobile software vendor Backendless, said Android developers “deserve to know that there is a choice.”
Companies such as Backendless, though, have survived because apps historically ditched Firebase tools once they could afford specialty services.
For instance, Firebase alternatives see their market share tick up slightly among health and finance apps, which require unique features due to government regulations, according to data from market tracker Appfigures.
Competitors point to Google pushing Firebase as an illustration of how big tech companies use small-dollar acquisitions to quietly extend their dominance, a practice the U.S. Federal Trade Commission began studying last month.
Google, which acquired Firebase in 2014, when it was three years old, has expanded its toolkit through other small deals, including acquiring the services Fabric and Crashlytics from Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) in 2017.
Reporting by Paresh Dave; Additional reporting by Diane Bartz in Washington; Editing by Greg Mitchell and Edward Tobin
Google’s Monopoly on Speech
Source: AP Photo/Ted S. Warren
“Don’t be evil” was explicit to Google’s motto and code of conduct for some 15 years. In 2015, Google updated its motto to “Do the right thing.” Today, Google, which owns YouTube, seems to have altered its motto to “Be evil” or “Do the wrong thing”—including censoring free speech of doctors, scientists, professors, politicians and journalists whose ideas differ from those of Google executives.
“This is the next step in the evolution of the Internet,” former Google CEO Eric Schmidt lauded Google’s purchase of YouTube for $1.65 billion in 2006. We now know Schmidt’s definition of Internet “progress” ostensibly centers around inducing users to think like him—by using YouTube to push assenting views and censor differing perspectives under the guise of legality or neutrality.
On April 27, YouTube deleted a video–that had accumulated over five million views—of a news conference hosted by Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi. The video contained no obscene content; no hate speech; and no copyright violations. The doctors operate a privateurgent-care clinic in Bakersfield, California, and they courageously questioned the scientific accuracy of massive, elongated shutdowns extending to the young and healthy: "Do we need to still shelter in place? Our answer is emphatically no...We're actually seeing the patients. Dr. Fauci hasn't seen a patient for 20 years."
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki quickly took to CNN to defend the censorship, claiming: “anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.” (YouTube’s policy was only recently changed to include such a stipulation.)
A quick search on YouTube after Wojcicki censored the Bakersfield doctors revealed at least 20 videos that purport to be “cure-alls” for all or nearly “all diseases”—including chanting a mantra 108 times and taking an herb. If these so-called health videos, which YouTube kept up, comply with WHO standards—it certainly makes you question WHO standards and YouTube’s compliance team.
Last week, YouTube censored yet another video critical of Dr. Anthony Fauci that also contained snippets of Drs. Erickson and Massihi: Plandemic Documentary: The Hidden Agenda Behind Covid-19. YouTube deleted this video three times in 24 hours – even after it had accrued nearly 10 million views (across three channels).
Millions upon millions of people—including practicing doctors and celebrated researchers—disagree with YouTube’s arbitrary criteria. So why is YouTube afraid of their ideas? After all, YouTube purports to be a platform for ideas.
Clearly, YouTube is no longer operating as a platform—but a publisher. It’s fine if YouTube wants to be a publisher, but it’s not fair that YouTube simultaneously enjoys the legal privileges of a platform while censoring and editing content in the manner of a traditional publisher.
YouTube’s Unfair Advantage at Taxpayer Expense
Capricious discrimination is wrong. Unless you’re YouTube. Or Facebook. Or Twitter. Or Instagram.
Most Americans have never heard of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Passed in 1996, professedly to keep the Internet clean of pornography, the clause gives platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter special protection against libel that is not afforded to traditional publishers—including television, newspapers, magazines and book publishers.
Newspapers are liable for anything printed within their pages or websites—including external submissions—such as Letters to the Editor. In contrast, thanks to Section 230—YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter—because they claim to be platforms (podiums for all ideas versus an editor or promotor of content) have virtually zero liability for what is posted or deleted from their sites. Unfortunately, these so-called platforms increasingly abuse this privilege, acting more like publishers and less like platforms—censoring certain content and boosting other content based on political, scientific, cultural or religious perspective.
Not foreseeing the consequences, the Supreme Court tossed the anti-porn portion of Section 230 on First Amendment grounds, while retaining the special perks in Section 230 for online publishers. Result: the exact opposite of what legislators intended. Today’s Internet is a breeding ground for graphic sensuality and vitriol melded with the blatant censorship of conservative, libertarian, Judeo-Christian, and other ideas that don’t fit “the criteria.”
Harvard-educated Dr. Robert Epstein – former editor of Psychology Today magazine – has done copious research regarding Google Search, and its influence on elections. He uncovered the phenomenon known as “Search Engine Manipulation Effect.”
Up to 10.4 million and as low as 2.6 million votes were swayed in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election by Google Search results, Epstein’s research found. “Even though I lean left and was publicly supportive of Hillary Clinton, numbers that large tell you that there is no free and fair election anymore,” Epstein said of his findings – as reported by David A. Patten in the March 2020 issue of Newsmax magazine.
Google, Epstein says, took advantage of the fact that its search engine users assume its results for common queries like “Hillary email scandal” or “best Democratic candidate” are neutral and unbiased. In 2016, the results for such searches pushed results that overtly favored Hillary Clinton and liberal ideas.
Epstein further found that Google “blacklists” right-leaning sites, forcing them outside natural search results—in favor of left-leaning news sources. “It is astonishing that Breitbart and some similar websites are not more present [in Google Search results], given the enormous traffic some of these websites get, Breitbart especially,” Epstein told Los Angeles Times. Yahoo and Bing results were found to be considerably more impartial than Google—another indication that Google’s search results favor agenda over accuracy.
Predictably, Google calls Epstein’s research the flawed work of an amateur. But Google stands to lose its righteous “Don’t be evil” public image—and significant ad revenue—if its worldwide users wake up to its active manipulation of search results, and therefore of election results.
Google’s influence on the world, post-COVID-19, extends beyond web censorship. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is being enlisted by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to help “reimagine” New York’s economy. Using COVID-19 as an excuse, the liberal billionaire behind Google is being invited to tell New Yorkers how they may live for the foreseeable future. Which businesses may open, and how—with an emphasis on telemedicine, remote education and working from home.
Social distancing is rife with issues and also helps Democrats, politically-speaking. Democrats are pushing for voting from home because it’s more susceptible to influence and fraud. Telemedicine is useful in some cases, but threatens the integrity of patient-doctor relationships. Certainly, there are benefits to having people stay home for work or school, such as family bonding. However, forcing people to stay at home is essentially zookeeping for humans and second, there is no such thing as guaranteed safety, only choices between risks and benefits.
What We Can Do
Consider switching your default Internet search engine to DuckDuckGo, Yahoo or Bing due to Google’s censorship of free speech on its search engine and sites it owns—including YouTube.
Ultimately, preserving free speech is a bipartisan issue. Left, Right and in-between must come together in this cause—because, once even one small group loses free speech—we all do.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz has found bipartisan support (including from Sen. Elizabeth Warren) for dismantling the protection that platform-publishers like YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter gain from Section 230. Unfortunately, Cruz has struggled to find sufficient courageous allies. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, is a staunch promoter of perpetuating the perks afforded social media giants in Section 230. So, we must pressure our elected officials—especially Republicans—to challenge Section 230 protections for platforms.
“It is the Press which has corrupted our political morals - and it is to the Press we must look for the means of our political regeneration,” said Alexander Hamilton. Today’s Press is broader than the newspaper of Hamilton’s time. Today, all publishers—including online publishers like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter—constitute the Press and we must hold them to the highest standards. We must support good journalism and media outlets that do promote the truth with our clicks, subscriptions and shares.
Let’s also encourage listening to all perspectives—including those we despise or consider dangerous. For, what’s the point of protecting milk-toast, non-controversial statements that no one would care if one said (or not) anyway?
Use your voice to speak up and pressure your local and national government to promote free speech—and end the unfair monopoly of ideas currently held by Google and its subsidiaries.
source: townhall.com
#BigTech is on notice. I've been saying it since 2016, when #Google clearly intentionally interfered in the U.S. PRESIDENTIAL #ELECTION; in 2020, big tech continues to push narratives of obvious lies and #obvious #propaganda and obvious #bias.
Trump administration proposes rolling back protections for big tech
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department proposed on Wednesday that Congress take up legislation to curb protections big tech platforms like Alphabet’s Google and Facebook have had for decades, a senior official said, following through on President Donald Trump’s bid to crack down on tech giants.
The goal of the proposal, which is being finalized, is to push tech companies to address criminal content on their platforms such as child exploitation, terrorism or cyber stalking, and boost transparency for users when the outlets take down lawful material, the Justice Department official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
For the proposal to become law, U.S. lawmakers would need to submit an approve a bill.
“These reforms are targeted at platforms to make certain they are appropriately addressing illegal and exploitive content while continuing to preserve a vibrant, open and competitive internet,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement.
The president, who has battled Twitter and other tech companies over alleged censorship of conservative voices on social media platforms, said in late May he would propose legislation to potentially scrap or weaken the law shielding internet companies, in an extraordinary attempt to regulate outlets where he has been criticized.
Trump said he sought to “remove or change” Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which generally exempts platforms from responsibility for what their users post and allows them to moderate the content of their sites as they wish.
The Justice Department proposal would seek to push platforms to “address” illicit content online, such as material that violates federal criminal law, the department said. It would also seek to require the companies to be upfront about content moderation decisions and prevent the big online platforms from invoking Section 230 in antitrust cases.
Facebook policy chief Nick Clegg told reporters that Section 230 enables the company to remove hate speech and that big changes would, “in the end, mean less speech of all kinds appearing online.”
The White House, for its part, welcomed news of the Justice Department proposal. “The president expressly called on DOJ to develop such model legislation in the Executive Order signed recently, and yes, President Trump is pleased to see the department following through,” said White House spokesman Judd Deere.
Trump has attacked Twitter for tagging his tweets about unsubstantiated claims of fraud about mail-in voting with a warning prompting readers to fact-check the posts.
Google and Twitter did not comment.
Carl Szabo, general counsel of NetChoice, a trade association which counts Google and Facebook among its members, said the proposal would create so many obstacles to removing content that the U.S. House of Representatives would not consider it.
Also on Wednesday, Senator Josh Hawley joined with three other Republicans to introduce a bill that would allow people to sue tech companies if they feel that their speech was censored.
In a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Hawley referenced a dispute with the conservative website The Federalist, saying that Google’s threat to demonetize the site because of comments made about Black Lives Matter protests was “profoundly disingenuous.” Hawley said Google sought to hold The Federalist responsible for its readers’ comments even though Google’s YouTube is not held responsible for comments because of Section 230.
“In short, Google demands minimum oversight for itself, but maximum power over those who use its platform,” Hawley wrote.
Reporting by Diane Bartz and Alexandra Alper; Additional reporting by Katie Paul; Editing by Jonathan Oatis, Andrea Ricci and Leslie Adler
Styxhexenhammer666 agrees that #GoogleisaSCAM AND #GoogleisNOTaVERB (unless said verb means to obtain subjectively biased web search results by using the criminally liable Google search 'engine', as opposed to objective web search results (Google/ Alphabet owns both the largest 'search engines', Google and YouTube).
Senator Accuses Google Of Posing "Tremendous Threat To Free And Fair Press" As Antitrust Probe Gets Going
As part of an escalating probe into anti-competitive and antitrust practices by Google, Reuters reports that DOJ officials and some state attorneys general are set to meet on Friday to discuss next steps. The federal government and nearly all state attorneys general have opened investigations into allegations that the company which once upon a time said its motto was "don't be evil" has broken antitrust laws.
The federal probe focuses on search bias, advertising and management of Google’s Android operating system, according to the report.
Separately, in a letter sent Sunday to U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn on Tuesday said that Google and parent company, Alphabet, pose a "threat to a free and fair press in America."
Addressing the Attorney General, Blackburn urges him "to thoroughly scrutinize how the company’s anticompetitive practices could lead to the crippling of journalistic freedom. I also ask that your probe examine abuses in both the online advertising and online search markets, and to take enforcement action swiftly before further economic harm results."
The rest of the story is well known to everyone on this site:
Google leverages the power of its ad platform GoogleAds to harm consumers and competitors alike. Last week, Google took actions towards demonetizing two conservative news media organizations based on the sites’ third-party user comments. A NBC article incorrectly reported that The Federalist and ZeroHedge were being banned from the GoogleAds platform for publishing racist articles, and a Google representative claimed that the punishment was for the publication of “derogatory content that promotes hatred, intolerance, violence or discrimination based on race.”1 In reality, the takedown pretext was based on user comments and not on news content. While The Federalist was allowed to remain on GoogleAds after suspending the user comment function, ZeroHedge’s entire site was blocked. Google knows it holds clients’ livelihoods in the palm of its hands, as publishers have no meaningful choice to generate ad revenue. Google has no qualms falsely labeling news publishers as racist as a convenient way to turn off their sites and scare writers from debating controversial ideas
Blackburn praised the DOJ for issuing a proposal last week to “roll back liability shields” for Google and other online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. These reforms alone, however, won’t stop “Google’s encroachment on competitors and grip on public discourse," Blackburn warned.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn✔@MarshaBlackburn
Google’s behavior could lead to the crippling of our free press.
Today I asked AG Barr @TheJusticeDept to examine abuses of online advertising & search markets, and to take action before further economic harm results.
"Google must be held accountable for such anticompetitive conduct. Both the American free market and the openness of our democracy are presently at stake,” she concluded her letter. “As the Department decides which actions to pursue, I urge mounting a full investigation that examines the company’s control over vast sectors of the Internet economy, from online advertising to online search."
Her full letter is below (pdf link):
If you start a Googleoo Movement, I'm in. I am frustrated with my google pixel phone. I feel like I am trapped. I purchased it a few years ago because windows phones were falling behind and I am irrationally anti-apple. How I miss my Carl Zeiss camera on my last Nokia. Google pixel sucks compared to that cellphone camera. Sign me up.
I've heard Pixels are among the best Android devices. Turns out Alphabet's Google runs a less bloated version of Android on their own devices. I guess they prefer their self branded hardware to function. I think there's going to soon be an alternative (a free and open source one perhaps) to these 'smart phones'. These devices are an absolute insult to computing and productivity. Software manufacturers jumped the shark a decade ago with their pointless updates, spyware, increasingly bloated operating systems.
Here's the problem with 'smart' phones. These dimwitted big tech organizations measure their performance in 'engagement' NOT in productivity. Essentially that's the OPPOSITE of what you want in a computer! I don't want to be engaged I want my inputs to be automated to the point that it increases my computing power. Engagement based metrics for devices and apps is pure evil. That is, if you waste more of your time on Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and the rest of their pathetic junkware- the 'better' it is.
These companies are 100% misleading their shareholders and that's 100% illegal. Just wait until 2021. Google, Facebook and Twitter especially will pay and pay dearly. <orders a pallet of popcorn> It shall be glorious.
YouTube, a product of Google, recently changed the format of the comment section under videos. Now one sees a single comment, or sometimes a space in which one is encouraged to type a comment. I've wondered what the benefit is for them from this new format.
Here's what I think:
It's mostly beta testing so far. The algorithm is learning something about our ways of interacting with the comment section, likely using a psychological profile of the YouTube account user. For now it's mostly listing the top comments in the single comment space one can see below the video. But I'm guessing it's going to get more selective, the comments chosen in a way to steer the dialogue.
One is perhaps also less likely to see comments that the algorithm may prefer to bury, simply by them being placed farther along in the lines of comments the user sees.
Would not be surprising.
Here are known issues:
Internet Studies
Notable Findings: People are currently revealing almost 40 percent more sensitive personal information online than they would if they knew the risks. In elections, search rankings that favor one candidate over another can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by up to 80 percent in some demographic groups. Automated search suggestions and the "featured snippet" (the answer box at the top of the page of search results) also influence people's opinions, purchases and votes without their knowledge. The search engine is, in effect, the most powerful mind control machine ever invented.
Ongoing Research: We have discovered and are currently studying and quantifying a number of powerful and largely invisible means of manipulation that the internet has made possible: the Answer Bot Effect (ABE), the Search Suggestion Effect (SSE), the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME), the Differential Demographics Effect (DDE), the Targeted Messaging Effect (TME), the Digital Bandwagon Effect (DBE), the YouTube Manipulation Effect (YME), the Opinion Matching Effect (OME) and others. Most of these effects involve ephemeral experiences, which means, among other things, that they don't leave paper trails for authorities to trace.
Recognition: As of January 2018, the National Academy of Sciences ranked AIBRT's 2015 paper on the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) to be in the top 1 percent of all scientific papers the organization monitored in all the sciences, both short-term and long-term. As of July 24, 2019, the paper had been accessed or downloaded from PNAS's website more than 200,000 times, and two replications of SEME were reported in 2017. Ongoing research on SEME suggests that search rankings are having a significant impact on many of the most important decisions people make in their lives, not just on voting preferences. Because SEME is virtually invisible as a form of social influence, it is especially dangerous.
Congressional Testimony: On July 16th, 2019, AIBRT's Senior Research Psychologist, Dr. Robert Epstein, testified before a Senate subcommittee about AIBRT's ongoing research on new forms of online manipulation. A 7-minute video of his testimony can be viewed here. A 15-minute exchange between Dr. Epstein and Senator Ted Cruz can be viewed here. Dr. Epstein's full written testimony can be accessed here.
Recent Publications
Epstein, R. (2020, February 24). Why Republicans can't win in 2020. Epoch Times.
Epstein, R. (2019, August 8). Why Google poses a serious threat to democracy and how to end that threat [Edited version of Epstein’s July 16, 2019 Congressional testimony – not edited by the author]. MercatorNet.
Epstein, R. (2019, July 30). Google’s latest whistleblower is hard to ignore. Daily Caller.
Epstein, R. (2019, July 16). Why Google poses a serious threat to democracy, and how to end that threat. Congressional Record of the United States.
Epstein, R. (2019, July 15). To break Google’s monopoly on search, make its index public. Bloomberg Businessweek.
Epstein, R. (2019, April 3). Zucked again: Zuckerberg’s proposal for regulating the internet is self-serving. Epoch Times.
Epstein, R. (2019, March 22). Google, Facebook, Amazon: Warren's toothless break-up plan ignores real Big Tech threats. USA Today.
Epstein, R. (2019, January 2). How Google shifts votes: A “go vote” reminder is not always what you think it is. Epoch Times.
Epstein, R. (2018, September 26). 10 ways Big Tech can shift millions of votes in the November elections—without anyone knowing. Epoch Times.
Epstein, R. (2018, September 13). Google and Big Tech can shift millions of votes in any direction: Donald Trump is more right than he knows. USA Today.
Epstein, R. (2018, August 27). How major news organizations, universities and businesses surrender their privacy to Google. The Daily Caller.
Epstein, R. (2018, June 25). Zuck off: Six reasons Mark Zuckerberg should quit Facebook now. The Daily Caller.
Epstein, R. (2018, May 17). Taming Big Tech: The case for monitoring. Hacker Noon.
Epstein. R. (2018). Manipulating minds: The power of search engines to influence votes and opinions. In M. Moore & D. Tambini (Eds.), Digital dominance: Implications and risks (pp. 293-318). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Epstein, R. (2018). The unprecedented power of digital platforms to control opinions and votes. In G. Rolnik (Ed.), Digital platforms and concentration: Second annual antitrust and competition conference (pp. 31-33). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. (2017). Suppressing the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). Proceedings of the ACM: Human-Computer Interaction, 1(2), Article 42. (Note: The authorship of this article is in dispute. Until that issue is resolved, the version of this article supplied by Dr. Epstein, the principal investigator on this project, will omit two people from the list of authors: Dr. David Lazer and Dr. Christo Wilson, each of Northeastern University. Dr. Epstein has also asked the organization that published the article to withdraw it from publication. Under the official rules of that organization, people cannot be made co-authors on a publication unless "they have made substantial intellectual contributions to some components of the original work described in the manuscript." Neither Dr. Lazer nor Dr. Wilson had any involvement in any aspects of the original work. That research was completed in mid 2015, well over a year before they even became aware of the existence of the research.)
Epstein, R. (2017, August 31). Google's fighting hate and trolls with a dangerously mindless A.I. Fast Company.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R.E. (2017, 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. WP-17-02.
Epstein, R. (2017, May 28). Is it still possible to stop ‘Big Tech’ from killing democracy? The Hill.
Epstein, R. (2017, April 10). Fake news is a fake problem. Medium.
Epstein, R. (2017, March 16). Seven simple steps toward online privacy. Medium.
Epstein, R., & Zhang, S. (2016, November 30). How the Electoral College changes the value of a person, a bit like slavery did. The Hill.
Epstein, R. (2016, November 17). Fake news and Facebook: There are far more pernicious ways social media can sway elections [Letter to the Editor]. Los Angeles Times.
Epstein, R., & Edelman, B. (2016, November 4). The other elephant in the voting booth: Big Tech could rig the election. The Daily Caller.
Epstein, R. (2016) Subtle new forms of internet influence are putting democracy at risk worldwide. In N. Lee (Ed.), Google it: Total information awareness (pp. 253-259). Springer.
Epstein, R. (2016, October 14). Breaking news: Google to donate its search engine to the American public. Huffington Post.
Epstein, R. (2016, September 12). Are we being manipulated by Google’s autocomplete? Sputnik International.
Epstein, R. (2016, September 6). Free isn’t freedom: How Silicon Valley tricks us. Motherboard.
Epstein, R. (2016, September ). Cyber sway: The new mind control. Ladybeard.
Epstein, R. (2016, July). Can search engine rankings swing elections? New Internationalist.
Epstein, R. (2016, July 12). Five subtle ways Facebook could influence the US presidential election this fall. Quartz.
Epstein. R. (2016, June 22). The new censorship. U.S. News & World Report.
Epstein, R. (2016, May 4). Bigger brother: Microsoft and Google's new pact could signal the beginning of the end of personal privacy. Quartz.
Epstein, R. (2016, April 27). Google knows: In the future, Big Data will make actual voting obsolete. Quartz.
Epstein, R. (2016, February 18). The new mind control. Aeon.
Epstein, R. (2015, October 6). Google's hypocrisy. Huffington Post.
Epstein, R. (2015, September 6). Google's vote counts more than yours. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Epstein, R. (2015, September 4). Google's hypocrisy. Ora.
Epstein, R. (2015, August 19). How Google could rig the 2016 election. Politico.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. E. (2015, August 4). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.
Epstein, R. (2014, Fall). Democracy at risk from new forms of internet influence. EMMA Magazine (a publication of the European Magazine Media Association).
Epstein, R. (2014, June 9). How Google could end democracy. U.S. News & World Report.
Epstein, R. (2014, May 29). Google critic killed in "ironic" car accident: Struck by Google Street View vehicle. Huffington Post.
Epstein, R. (2014, May 9). Google's snoops: Mining our private date for profit and pleasure. Dissent.
Epstein, R. (2013, May 10). Google's gotcha. U.S. News & World Report.
Epstein, R. (2013, March 27). Google's dance. TIME.
Epstein, R. (2012, November 5). Why Google should be regulated (Part 4, End). Huffington Post.
Epstein, R. (2012, November 2). Why Google should be regulated (Part 3). Huffington Post. (6-29-19 update: Link to Part 4 at the end of the article is broken. Use: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-should-be-regu_b_2069223.)
Epstein, R. (2012, October 31). Why Google should be regulated (Part 2). Huffington Post. (6-29-19 update: Link to Part 3 at the end of the article is broken. Use: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-should-be-regu_b_2054111.)
Epstein, R. (2012, October 23). Why Google should be regulated (Part 1). Huffington Post. (6-29-19 update: Link to Part 2 at the end of the article is broken. Use: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/online-privacy_b_2013583. An edited version of the entire article first appeared in The Kernel [UK] on September 5, 2012. See below.)
Epstein, R. (2012, September 12). Google: The case for hawkish regulation. The Kernel. (Expanded version appeared in four parts in The Huffington Post beginning on October 23, 2012. See above.)
Recent Presentations
Epstein, R. (2019, July 16). Why Google poses a serious threat to democracy, and how to end that threat [oral testimony, 7-min. video]. Testimony before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington, D.C.
Epstein, R., & Williams, E. (2019, April). Evidence of systematic political bias in online search results in the 10 days leading up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Paper presented at the 99th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Pasadena, CA.
Epstein, R. (2019, March). How Big Tech companies control the opinions and beliefs of billions of people worldwide – including our children – without anyone knowing. Invited talk presented at the Bringing America Back to Life Convention, Cleveland, OH.
Epstein, R. (2019, March). The new mind control. Invited talk presented at a meeting of the Portage County TEA Party, Ravenna, OH.
Epstein, R. (2018, November). Participant in roundtable discussion on “Information Challenges to Democracy,” Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Epstein, R., Mohr, R., Jr., & Martinez, J. (2018, April). The Search Suggestion Effect (SSE): How search suggestions can be used to shift opinions and voting preferences dramatically. Paper presented at the 98th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Portland, OR.
Epstein, R., & Mohr, R., Jr. (2018, April). The Answer Bot Effect (ABE): Another surprising way search engines can impact opinions. Paper presented at the 98th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Portland, OR.
Epstein, R. (2018, April). Big Brother, internet style: New sources of online influence are invisibly impacting the decisions that billions of people are making every day. Invited lecture, Distinguished Speaker Series on Ethics and Policy of Big Data, AI and Other Emerging Technologies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Epstein, R. (2018, April). Panelist, Annual Conference on Antitrust Competition and Digital Platforms, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Epstein, R. (2018, April). Panelist, Breitbart News Town Hall on Big Tech vs. Free Speech and Privacy, New Orleans, LA. (80-min. video, event begins at 14:30)
Epstein, R. (2018, January). New technologies pose an unprecedented threat to health privacy. Invited talk given at the opening of the Center for Health Law Policy & Bioethics, Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego Law School, San Diego, California.
Epstein, R. (2017, November). The power of Google’s search algorithm. Invited talk given at a meeting of the American Freedom Alliance, Los Angeles, California.
Epstein, R. (2017, June). Unethical algorithms of massive scale: New data, a new discovery, a new tracking system, and a new society (audio, 1 hr. 23 min.). Invited talk given at the Stanford University Department of Electrical Engineering.
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.
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.
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.
Epstein, R. (2017, April). Can search suggestions impact what we search for online? The role of negativity bias. Paper presented at the 97th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Sacramento, CA.
Epstein, R. (Chair). (2017, March). Symposium: Subtle new forms of internet influence and their multiple impacts on society. Held at the 2nd biennial meeting of the International Convention of Psychological Science, Vienna, Austria.
Epstein, R. (2017, March). The Search Suggestion Effect (SSE): How autocomplete can be used to impact votes and opinions. Paper presented at the 2nd biennial meeting of the International Convention of Psychological Science, Vienna, Austria.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R.E. (2017, 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.
Epstein, R. (2017, March). Participant in conference on the regulation of fake news. Information Society Project, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT.
Epstein, R. Can search engines alter our opinions? Invited talk given at the Open Innovations Forum, Moscow, Russia, October 29, 2016.
Epstein, R. The new mind control. Invited talk given at the 360 Science & Technology Film Festival, Polytechnic Museum, Moscow, Russia, October 28, 2016.
Epstein, R. (2016, July). The power of Big Data to control the outcome of elections. Invited talk given at the London School of Economics Symposium on Dangers of Digital Dominance, London, UK.
Epstein, R. (2016, May). The surprising impact of invisible influence on human thinking and behavior. Invited talk given at the annual meeting of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Washington, DC.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R.E. (2016, April).Why is the search engine manipulation effect (SEME) so large? A test of an operant conditioning hypothesis. Paper presented at the 96th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Long Beach, CA.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R.E. (2016, April). A replication of the search engine manipulation effect (SEME), plus methods for suppressing the effect. Paper presented at the 96th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Long Beach, CA.
Epstein, R. (2016, February). The new mind control. Invited talk given at the Muhlenberg College Center for Ethics.
Epstein, R. (2015, October). Leader, brainstorming session on the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). Founder’s Forum, New York, NY.
Epstein, R. (2015, October). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on elections. Invited talk to be given at a meeting of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC.
Epstein, R. (2015, October). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its unparalleled power to influence how we think. Invited talk to be given at the Stanford University Department of Electrical Engineering.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R.E. (2015, April). The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME): Large-scale replications in two countries. Paper presented at the 95th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Epstein, R. (2015, March). Panelist, “Digital absolutism: Time for a new people’s revolution?” World Business Dialogue, Cologne, Germany.
Epstein, R. (2015, March). New forms of internet influence: Is democracy at risk? Keynote address given at the annual CeBIT conference, Hannover, Germany.
Epstein, R. (2015, March). The search engine manipulation effect (SEME): It’s large, robust, and a serious threat to democracy. Talk given at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Epstein, R. (2014, June). Democracy at risk: The power of search engines to determine the outcomes of elections. Seminar presented at the School of Government, Development and International Affairs, University of the South Pacific.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R.E. (2014, April). Helping people preserve their privacy online: The surprising power of a click requirement. Paper presented at the 94th annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Portland, OR.
Epstein, R. (2013, November). The search engine as a threat to both privacy and democracy. Invited talk given at the 9th annual meeting of the Corporate Directors Forum, San Diego, CA.
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R.E. (2013, May). Democracy at risk: Search rankings can shift voter preferences substantially. Paper presented at the 25th annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Washington, DC.
