.@HillaryClinton, whom I have strongly supported for many years, told blatant lies about me today. As a result, I have been subjected to widespread condemnation by mainstream media. I'm going to fight this. Stay tuned tomorrow for my first-ever twitter storm. pic.twitter.com/CrPHMycVBu
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
Dr. Robert Epstein on Big Tech Censorship
PragerU
Published on Jul 19, 2019
Dr. Robert Epstein’s testimony before the Senate concerning Google’s search manipulation and its impact on elections.
_______________________________________
Sen. Cruz Questions Victims of Censorship on Google’s Bias
Senator Ted Cruz
Published on Jul 18, 2019
Dr. Robert Epstein on Whether Google Can Rig the Presidential Election
PoliticKING with Larry KingSep 04 ’15
Could the technology behemoth Google actually rig the upcoming presidential election? Larry discusses with distinguished scholar, scientist and award-winning author Dr. Robert Epstein on PoliticKING. Dr. Epstein expands on the conversation here
www.ora.tv/politicking/article/2015/9/04/googles-hypocrisy
Google’s Hypocrisy
The head of Google Search denies my claim that Google can control elections—well, sort of; if you read closely, you’ll find that he denies nothing.
PoliticKING with Larry King September 04 ’15
By Robert Epstein
Google has spoken. Apparently shaken by my recent article in Politico— “How Google Can Rig the 2016 Election” —Google’s head of search, Dr. Amit Singhal, has published a critique—“A Flawed Elections Conspiracy Theory.”I encourage you to read it closely.
I emphasize the word closely. On the surface, Dr. Singhal’s article appears to refute my recent assertions that Google can easily flip close elections by favoring a candidate in its search rankings. If you read closely, however, you will find that Dr. Singhal has denied none of my specific claims. As I discussed recently in my appearance on “PoliticKING” with Larry King, here are the major points I made in my Politico article, not one of which was refuted in Dr. Singhal’s reply, not even in part:
…
…
www.ora.tv/politicking/article/2015/9/04/googles-hypocrisy
#Trump tweet, point #1: I've never said that #Google deliberately "manipulated" the 2016 election, but I measured substantial pro-#Hillary bias in #Google's search results by preserving & analyzing 13,207 election-related searches & the 98,044 web pages linked to those searches.
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
#Trump tweet, point #2: The level of pro-#Hillary bias I found in #Google's search results – absent on #Bing & #Yahoo – was enough to convince between 2.6 & 10.4 million undecided voters to vote for Hillary. .@realDonaldTrump said 16 million; that's wrong.
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
Somebody send him this, 300,000 Hillary votes didn’t exist upon recount in Detroit.
#Trump tweet, point #3: It doesn't matter whether the bias in #Google search results was deliberate or not. Once it appeared – which it did at least 6 months before the election – it began shifting opinions & votes without people's knowledge & without leaving a paper trail.
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
#Hillary has long depended on #Google for both money & votes.
Her largest donor in 2016 was Alphabet/Google.
Her Chief Technology Officer during the campaign was Stephanie Hannon, a former Google exec.
And then there’s #EricSchmidt, longtime head of Google – the guy in the pic:
#Hillary has long depended on #Google for both money & votes. Her largest donor in 2016 was Alphabet/Google. Her Chief Technology Officer during the campaign was Stephanie Hannon, a former Google exec. And then there's #EricSchmidt, longtime head of Google – the guy in the pic: pic.twitter.com/dSV8wOPwAH
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
h/t The Natural One