Skip to content



Search giant Google, Inc. stands accused of manipulating its search results in favor of Hillary Clinton, according to a new report with compelling evidence published Thursday.


One examp given is when a user types “Hillary Clinton crim” into the search bar: instead of being recommend a search such as “Hillary Clinton crimes,” Google instead suggests “Hillary Clinton crime bill 1994,” despite Google’s own trends tool showing that “Hillary Clinton crimes” is by far and away the most popular search term.


In stark contrast, typing “Hillary Clinton crim” into Bing and Yahoo results in the top suggestion being “Hillary Clinton criminal” and “Hillary Clinton criminal investigation” respectively.


Google’s says in its statement that “predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms,” and yet the video clearly shows that there is a huge gulf between the popularity of the terms not being shown and those being shown; but hidden within that may actually be Google’s real excuse for what it is clearly doing: “our systems automatically filter a small set of offensive or inappropriate content from autocomplete predictions” would suggest that Google’s perhaps thinks that negative Hillary content is offensive or inappropriate.

It’s completely utter rubbish for Google to try to defend itself here as the evidence really couldn’t be clearer.

If you get a chance make sure to watch the video above: there’s no ifs and buts about what’s going on.


I have to refer you to consider Appendix A as evidence for the prosecution!

Google’s – Appendix A

8 Appendix A: Advertising and Mixed Motives

Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. For example, in our prototype search engine one of the top results for cellular phone is “The Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention“, a study which explains in great detail the distractions and risk associated with conversing on a cell phone while driving. This search result came up first because of its high importance as judged by the PageRank algorithm, an approximation of citation importance on the web [Page, 98]. It is clear that a search engine which was taking money for showing cellular phone ads would have difficulty justifying the page that our system returned to its paying advertisers. For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.

Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who “deserves” to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed. This business model resulted in an uproar, and OpenText has ceased to be a viable search engine. But less blatant bias are likely to be tolerated by the market. For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from “friendly” companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors. This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results. For example, we noticed a major search engine would not return a large airline’s homepage when the airline’s name was given as a query. It so happened that the airline had placed an expensive ad, linked to the query that was its name. A better search engine would not have required this ad, and possibly resulted in the loss of the revenue from the airline to the search engine. In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines. However, there will always be money from advertisers who want a customer to switch products, or have something that is genuinely new. But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.

Think about their statement:

But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.



  1. Check Google’s Appendix A from their creation… at the time they stated that search engines should not be commercial – as they were prone to manipulation.  So who sold out?
  2. Google’s Appendix A warned you – commercial search is not to be trusted, it will be subject to “mixed incentives”.  Google have just been caught red handed.
  3.  If we assume Google are being used as “thought police”, you have to use the philosophy of “follow the money”.  I bet there is a financial connection between Google and Clinton.  Time for the intrepid to “follow the money”, as it will tell you whom is corrupting whom.



One Comment
  1. Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: