HIllary To Win 2016 Drafted By Googles Eric Schmidt Google Search Algorythm Manipulated?

The video dives briefly into a wiki leak about Eric Schmidt drafting a strategic plan and changing search algorithms to manipulate the searches that people get when they use the service.
So in short this is censorship by setting up google search by changing the recommended search terms.


Would this be considered a campaign donation, how much would all that help cost?
This is a scorched earth election HRC is running. If you are on HRC's team you better have a CYA like it is theorized Huma had. Or you may not have the get out of jail free card, and good luck to you.

I could NOT find the Wikileak document the video is discussing.

a reply to: seasonal

I could NOT find the Wikileak document the video is discussing.

What is with threads today...posting a thread and then saying "Oh yeah, I don't have a source or any examples...but I'm posting it anyway"?

But to address your post...if Google wants to change their algorithms to benefit Hillary...that is their right as private company and not a government organization.

a reply to: seasonal

This was already posted. And the only source so far is RT's hoax "news" organization. Nuff said.

Here is a source: [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/wikileaks-reveals-googles-strategic-plan-help-democrats-win-election[/url]

Eric Schmidt is a weasel bilderberger and has his tentacles in other governments aswell.
No private company has a right to invade people privacy like this and then use the data to manipulte them.

a reply to: seasonal

Well, she and Google do have a relationship. Google is not to be trusted for all the obvious reasons but damnit i can't stop using it!

a reply to: Swills

Google is not to be trusted for all the obvious reasons but damnit i can't stop using it!

That is the problem, we are unwilling to even stop using a product, even if they are bordering on criminal.

a reply to: kruphix

But to address your post...if Google wants to change their algorithms to benefit Hillary...that is their right as private company and not a government organization.

And as a private company that controls the flow of information and operates within the US, they have an obligation to be transparent to their customers.

Finding out through Wikileaks that the 2nd wealthiest company in the world has an invested interest in one candidate and that they have manipulated their services in order to assist that candidate is not transparency.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Finding out through Wikileaks that the 2nd wealthiest company in the world has an invested interest in one candidate and that they have manipulated their services in order to assist that candidate is not transparency.

+ I assume this is all done for free, is that LEGAL?

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: seasonal

Well, she and Google do have a relationship. Google is not to be trusted for all the obvious reasons but damnit i can't stop using it!

Try:

www.ixquick.com
www.startpage.com

There are alternatives. From what I can tell, the above two are just as good as the more popular one with both web and image searches, with none of the privacy concerns.

a reply to: seasonal

Yeah, it's just too good! That, and I don't care what google knows I'm searching.

a reply to: seasonal

Would you be complaining if Google was manipulating search results to benefit Trump instead?

Who they're assisting is irrelevant. The point is that they are assisting any candidate at all as opposed to fulfilling their duty by facilitating content from all over the internet, unfiltered content at that.

a reply to: Swills

Yeah, it's just too good! That, and I don't care what google knows I'm searching.

Laws have a tendency to change. Sometimes what we do, or search for is legal today and illegal tomorrow. That is what concerns me. Plus sharing search results with, Oh let's say insurance Co's, because you are looking up ways to modify your toyota supra. The insurance co then raises your rates, or drops you. I know it is a far out scenario, by it is completely possible to do today.

As bad as Google is AT&T in the States which gladly "sells" all of your information and activities to the NSA and other US government agencies. Bet AT&T did not clearly disclose that little activity.

a reply to: kruphix

What is with threads today...posting a thread and then saying "Oh yeah, I don't have a source or any examples...but I'm posting it anyway"?

Let's all take a breath, I based the thread off the video. That is smack in the middle of the thread.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

No ATS search results with search-Wikileaks Reveals Google's "Strategic Plan" To Help Democrats.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

they have an obligation to be transparent to their customers.

No, the really don't.

If you don't like what they are doing, feel free to boycott them.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: kruphix

What is with threads today...posting a thread and then saying "Oh yeah, I don't have a source or any examples...but I'm posting it anyway"?

Let's all take a breath, I based the thread off the video. That is smack in the middle of the thread.

Here's a description of Google's strategy for Helping Democrats/Hillary. A link to the Wiki-leaked e-mail is in the first paragraph.

Google Aligns With Democrats: www.breitbart.com...

I think Google/Android smartphones are permeated with Google spyware and tracking. I notice when I try to voice-dictate Anti-Hillary messages to ATS, the recognition program has a really hard time interpreting certain words... like CROOKED, SICKLY, DECEITFUL, etc.. if "Hillary" is also part of that sentence.