DJT is @ it again attacking Google with HIS "crying" over 2016 election

Jun 2019
Talk about triggered. HE just can't let Nov. 2016 go. Sad that HE relies on the partisan Judicial Watch for HIS misinformation. :love: HRC's response.

Hillary Clinton fires back at Trump over Google allegation
It’s so funny how he wins the election and is president, but can’t accept the fact that more Americans wanted another candidate. His ego is so unbelievably fragile

Quite the beta male he is to care this much.


Former Staff
Jul 2014
He is pushing nutter theories from his propaganda news station - AGAIN? LOL

Shortly before noon, Fox Business aired a segment discussing testimony offered to the Senate last month. Robert Epstein, a psychologist who at one point was editor in chief of Psychology Today, told senators on July 17 that his research suggested Google had given millions of votes to Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. A guest on Fox Business named Oz Sultan, who worked with Trump’s 2016 campaign, looped that claim back into the broader, ongoing criticism of social-media companies that’s currently in vogue among conservatives.

That’s not what Epstein said in his testimony. He estimated a range of 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes, with 15 million votes being the possible shift in 2020. That 2.6 million estimate, he said, was the “rock bottom” estimate. While Epstein identifies himself as a Democrat who backed Clinton, that’s a convenient figure, since Clinton won by about 2.9 million votes nationally. here’s just one problem: Those estimates deserve far, far more skepticism than Trump would ever give them

One of the more baffling aspects to this research is that no indication is made about how the searches were conducted. Google’s search results are specific to users, and there’s no indication in the summary (mentions of using incognito mode, for example) that any effort was made to return unweighed results from the search engine. Nor is there information provided about who participated in the study. Collecting results from a group of well-to-do city dwellers, for example, might help explain any “bias.”

This is more problematic because while the research points to thousands of search results that were analyzed, only 95 people actually provided responses to the study. Meaning if the results were driven by the identities of those individuals, the variation in the pool of results was actually 95. Oh, and of that group? Only 21 were undecided. If the 2.6 million figure derives from that group alone, the value of that figure is almost nil.
May 2019
Can't trust the source from the RWC bubble blogosphere jenniel for all the alt-facts contained therein.