they change i see 20 000 likes and 80 000 dilikes than i seee 86 likes and 26 dislikes after 1 sec
they change i see 20 000 likes and 80 000 dilikes than i seee 86 likes and 26 dislikes after 1 sec
Last edited by mmoc1bc8e6de49; 2016-06-13 at 10:52 AM.
Well with nothing to go on other than your word... I have no idea.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/clinto...-online-2016-4
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...from-vlad.html
Using a tactic called “astro-turfing,” Clinton surrogates like Brock have attempted to advance the concept of the “Bernie Bro,” and to promote the idea that Sanders supporters are little more than a sexist cult.
The focus of the “digital task force” of paid trolls will be predictable: Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, and everywhere else people may come across political messaging.
-
One common reaction to the news is shock—the idea that this is “unprecedented” in American politics. That may be true, but there’s a clear model here, and it comes straight from Russia.
If you haven’t yet read Adrian Chen’s wonderful New York Times Magazine feature “The Agency,” I recommend that you do so now. It’s an incredible look at the “Internet Research Agency,” which employs “hundreds of Russians to post pro-Kremlin propaganda online under fake identities, including on Twitter, in order to create the illusion of a massive army of supporters; it has often been called a “troll farm.””
Last edited by mmoca8403991fd; 2016-06-13 at 10:57 AM.
Google is helping hillary.
Here is a brief video showing some of the stuff google is doing to support her/it/sea hag
(Google owns youtube)
I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
Debunked already
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/10/11...illary-clinton
For the same reason the candidates have fake twitter followers.
It's speculated Super Pacs do that kind of crap.
And apparently, as we see with this thread, a few people have enough time on their hand and actually care for such unimportant shit.
"The pen is mightier than the sword.. and considerably easier to write with."
I typed donald trump into google and it didn't bring up anything about his scam university in the auto complete, clearly google is working for trump too!
Or, its because
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/10/tech...earch-results/"Our autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person's name," a Google spokeswoman said. "Google autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how autocomplete works."
Last edited by Moralgy; 2016-06-13 at 01:22 PM.
Related and for what it's worth..
There is an entire (very high paid) industry out there, dedicated to SEO (Search Engine Optimization).
Businesses are willing to rake out the big bucks to be favored by the search engine's algo's.
That's a market field never out of business, since the search engines change that code all the time.
Now, another fun fact for the conspiracy idiots..
How come a search for Donald Trump on Bing suggests you rather harmless terms.
But a search for Hillary Clinton has a few sensitive terms in the list.
Shouldn't it be the other way around, if the conspiracy holds water?
I mean, after all BING is owned by the alleged Leftwing powerhouse Microsoft.
At the end of the day, some people have way too much time. And if those people are simpletons, then you get conspiracy nonsense.
"The pen is mightier than the sword.. and considerably easier to write with."
Hurr let's attack the source, not the argument
https://medium.com/@rhea/hillary-cli...ca1#.3k997qjl8
Either way, google has shown to be biased before. They blacklist certain sites, like 8chan(4chan remains unharmed), for no good reason.
A search engine blacklisting legal sites can not be trused in my eyes.
- - - Updated - - -
Maybe post a better source next time, but i'm not giving the verge any clicks.
I also don't give a shit about what google does or does not to with Clinton, so what argument was I supposed to argue against?
s
Last edited by JohnBrown1917; 2016-06-13 at 01:41 PM.
Always back an argument with a source people are at least "alright" with.
Breibart, dailymail, huffpost all for the most part are ehhhhhhhh verge is kinda in this too. Also anything that sounds like a blog.