During the 2016 Presidential Campaign, we watched then Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton spend $100 Million on untargeted ads, repetitive marketing and over a Billion dollars more than then Candidate Trump to garner a popular vote increase of only a few million. A big question should be – with so many failed marketing strategies, how did Hillary achieve more votes?
Recently, Congress heard Testimony from the Editor of Psychology Today who also analyzed the 2010 Facebook voter tests, social media voter tests across platforms and the impact of Google Search results. He indicated that were the platforms to work towards the support of a single Democratic candidate – that they could potentially influence up to 15 Million voters.
Robert Epstein, who testified, is not a Republican and raised the issue – as skewed results and influence are the tech giant equivalent of trying to affect democracy.
President Trump responded to this and Fox Business commentary–which I was a part of– on the issue in a single tweet which tied a few of these issues together.
Mind you this is after recent document dumps of internal Google search biases and known issues of search result suppression.
The problem now is that Hillary Clinton has personally begun waging a Twitter battle on Robert Epstein – who gave the testimony – going after one aspect of his study and not all of the data presented. That screams more sour grapes than wanting fair play across the aisle from Google, Facebook, and Twitter.
And I ask you – how does that and not searching to eliminate the known bias help the American voter?