It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Google exec email may show Google used resources to help Democrats

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in

+33 more 
posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 09:29 PM
Tucker Carlson claimed on his show today to have received an email that was originally sent by a Google exec the day after the election in 2016 that shows Google used resources to try to help the democrats on their platform.

Start at the begining and go to about 6 minutes

Here is the article.

Here is the short version.

A google exec is lamenting in this email that although they did a good job using googles platform to try to drive up votes for "our side", which was mainly in swing states with hispanic populations, she was sad because they lost because 30% of Hispanics voted for trump. She actually calls their efforts a "silent donation"

In other words Google was specifically targeting hispanic voters in swing states that they felt would vote for hillary to beat trump.

This story has the potential to be very big for a couple of reasons.

First, remember when I was warning people on the left that it was hyperbolic to say those russian trolls using facebook had such a huge impact? I said that this was basically an admission that these tech have huge power, and these arguments would be used against them if it what shown that the very people running the tech platforms (not just a few trolls) were helping the Democrats.

Well if this story is true, this is more proof that Google was steering search results to help democrats, which would have exponentially more impact than russian trolls on facebook.

And secondly, remember how the media went nuts over the story that trump may have had the national enquirer donate to his campaign by buying stories negative to trump and burying them, and how that was a campaign finance violation?

Well this is like that, times a million. Instead of a tabloid burying a couple stories, we have one of the worlds most powerful companies helping hillary win and not reporting it.

And just how powerful is Google? Could they swing an election? Of course.

Research I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections—indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs—than any company in history has ever had. Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson .

Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.

This would mean that there are potential campaign finance laws google broke. And if anyone in hillarys team or the DNC were in contact with any of these people doing this at google, then they also potentially broke the law.

Given the power that Google has, it should worry everyone, even people that hate trump, that they could so brazenly act to favor one party, and not report those donations.

As the article I posted shows, they could swing entire elections with practically no one knowing.

And make no mistake, they would screw over any independent voice as much as they did trump, meaning any third party candidate, or even someone like Bernie sanders.

This is a big story and an investigation should be opened up to see exactly what Google did to help Hillary or other candidates.

edit on 10-9-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)

+2 more 
posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 09:33 PM
Whew I am just too fast!

This article came up as I was posting this thread.

Elsewhere in the email Mario says "Google supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states."

She describes this assistance as a "silent donation"

Mario then says that Google helped Voto Latino create ad campaigns to promote those rides. Now officially Voto Latino is a non-partisan entity, but that is a sham. Voto Latino is vocally partisan. Recently the group declared that Hispanics - ALL Hispanics are in President Trump’s "crosshairs." They said they plan to respond to this by registering another million additional Hispanic voters in the next Presidential cycle.


It was, in effect, an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.


In the end, Google was disappointed. As Mario herself conceded "ultimately after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. -Tucker Carlson

The article lists other examples of Google helping hillary as well.

+17 more 
posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 09:38 PM

+14 more 
posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 09:42 PM
Despite being the most powerful search engine in the world and high level executive powers directed at a singular agenda designed to help one candidate, they still couldn't stump the Trump.

Infact, its scientifically proven you can't stump the Trump.

This is the folly of the liberal tech giants and one mimiced by the liberal media, in that they ignore the everyday citizen and think nothing much of them.

Oh how very wrong they are.

edit on 10-9-2018 by Arnie123 because: Ooops

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 10:08 PM
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, I have a thread from 2016 showing how bias Google was during the election season, Google: hillary clinton ind.... Pretty blatant stuff, especially when compared to other search engines results. Posters in the thread posted their findings.

That all said, even the all powerful Google couldn't help her as Hispanics supported Obama and her husband more than her. Obviously she had more Hispanic support than Trump and that support did help her out but in the end but it wasn't enough, well the rest is history.
edit on 10-9-2018 by Swills because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 10:10 PM
Just by all the evidence, I have no doubt this is true.
I don't know who pulls Google's strings. But I'd be willing to wager it's the same organization/s pushing for "no boarders" and for 16 year olds to be able to vote. Cough! Choke. Coughing!!!democrats cough! Excuse me.

What they can't get, because of the "laws" of the Republic, they'll try and get through/by "democracy". After all?
Ain't democracy legal? Even if it's by illegal "emigrants"?

Them idiots don't know. They'll live to regret their treachery.

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 10:10 PM
a reply to: Swills

You were on it early with that thread!

Its getting to the point where something is going to have to be done.

Google skipping the meeting with congress is definitely not looking for them at this point.

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 10:16 PM
Don't be Evil!

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 10:18 PM
a reply to: Grambler

I just happened to stumble across a video on YouTube from a channel that shutdown not long after. Now the original video is deleted so I wonder, did the owners of the channel delete it or did Google, since it owns YouTube.

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 10:34 PM
a reply to: Grambler

I'm glad that you're now of the opinion that social media, search engines and the like can influence public opinion. So watching the video, I can't help but notice Tucker Carlson starts out the segment with a line of bull# about "a couple dozen Facebook ads" which is of course not at all accurate. Must be a little mind rending for him to walk the line between being dismissive of a well funded and staffed foreign influence campaign and sounding the alarm on the potential for undue influence by tech execs using the very same platforms.

Ah, who am I kidding? Tuck's a pro.

So it's not really clear the nature of the relationship from the excerpts. I didn't hear any evidence of manipulation of search results. Who was the email sent to? Seems like that would be important. But if there were services performed for free, that would seem to represent an in kind donation and be a violation of campaign finance. Not that campaign finance violations are a big deal, amirite? (kidding)

What I wonder though, is if these were services that were paid for or not. I say services because there's a clear insinuation here that not only was there a campaign finance violation but that there was some manipulation of search results beyond the type of microtargetted advertising that all of these platforms make their money from — and I didn't hear anything that indicated that.

To that point, here's how the author's position is described:

The email we obtained came from a woman named Eliana Murillo, the head of the multicultural marketing department.

So the person who would be ultimately responsible for among other things, marketing targeted specifically to Hispanics. Let me share with you something that I've shared before here on ATS.

Facebook "embeds," Russia and the Trump campaign's secret weapon

Brad Parscale: Well, we had our-- their staff embedded inside our offices.

Lesley Stahl: What?

Brad Parscale: Yeah, Facebook employees would show up for work every day in our offices.

Lesley Stahl: Whoa, wait a minute. Facebook employees showed up at the Trump headquarters --

Brad Parscale: Google employees, and Twitter employees.

Lesley Stahl: They were embedded in your campaign?

Brad Parscale: I mean, like, they were there multiple days a week, three, four days a week, two days week, five days a week --

Lesley Stahl: What were they doing inside? I mean --

Brad Parscale: Helping teach us how to use their platform. I wanna get --

Lesley Stahl: Helping him get elected?

Brad Parscale: I asked each one of them by email, I wanna know every, single secret button, click, technology you have. "I wanna know everything you would tell Hillary's campaign plus some. And I want your people here to teach me how to use it."

Lesley Stahl: Inside?

Brad Parscale: Yeah, I want 'em sittin' right next to us --

Lesley Stahl: How do you know they weren't Trojan Horses?

Brad Parscale: 'Cause I'd ask 'em to be Republicans, and I'd -- we'd talk to 'em.

Lesley Stahl: Oh, you only wanted Republicans?

Brad Parscale: I wanted people who support Donald Trump from their companies.

Lesley Stahl: And that's what you got?

Brad Parscale: Yeah. They already have divisions set up that way.

Lesley Stahl: What do you mean?

Brad Parscale: They already have groups of people in their political divisions that are Republican and Democrat.

The Clinton campaign paid Google millions of dollars, just like the Trump campaign. How do you imagine a letter from somebody from one of the teams embedded with the Trump campaign might sound?

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 10:45 PM
a reply to: Arnie123

Despite being the most powerful search engine in the world and high level executive powers directed at a singular agenda designed to help one candidate, they still couldn't stump the Trump.

Which should be a huge indicator that it's all a psyop. You don't go up against the entire establishment (unlimited money) and win. They want you to think it happened but in actuality Trump is just following the script.

I know hope springs eternal but Trump being the well that your hope springs from? Laughable at best and sad at worst.

Just speaking my mind, not directed at you in particular.

posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 10:50 PM
Google is also going overboard with pushing out Anti-Trump stories to Android phones. There is something the company feels will be uncovered/exposed by this President.

+2 more 
posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 10:54 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

First yes despite you being an obviously intelligent person who I normally understand where you are coming from, you are one who has gone on and on about how these russian trolls using facebook had such a huge impact. I just dont get it.

So yeah, it was more than 12 trolls, ok. They still spent only what a hundred thousand, compared to the billions spent on the election. And many of their ads were not just anti hillary, many supported lgbt causes or BLM. Many were not seen till after the election.

Therefore using your own logic, that would mean that you have to concede that if we have proof that the people running these companies were in the bag for Hillary, that is a much bigger deal that needs investigating.

Now on to your article.

Notice this part.

people in the Clinton campaign confirmed that the offer was made and turned down. Facebook told us in a statement:

"...for candidates across the political spectrum, Facebook offers the same level of support in key moments to help campaigns understand how best to use the platform."

So facebook does this for all campaigns, and hillary people turned it down.

And it is just facebook showing teams how to use their product.

This is different than giving a "silent donation" as the exec in the email suggests.

But can I at least get you to agree that if you find out google was helping hillary like this, or twotter or facebook were steering traffic or censoring people to help hillary, this is exponentially worse than the russian trolls you have been so concerned about that used facebook?

edit on 10-9-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 02:06 AM
a reply to: Grambler

So whats the possible legal ramifications of this?

+5 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 05:51 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

You're so full of crap it's coming out of your ears. You're comparing ads on Facebook and Twitter with Google's search engine? Seriously?

I don't know a single person who takes anything they see on Facebook or Twitter seriously, but easily half the country believes whatever Google tells them.

Your strawman argument is nonsense.

posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 09:28 AM
a reply to: Grambler

As I understand it the Google employee even used the term 'silent donations'.
If this story is true, Google need to made liable for content they serve through search, because the search results are nothing more than their "editors" decisions on what we should be reading.
That would actually end them. Which would be hugely to the benefit of mankind.

edit on 11/9/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 11:58 AM
I don't think there are any repercussions for trying to get people to vote.
I don't think there are any repercussions for a company for trying to get people to vote the way they would like, as long as they did not try and buy a vote or force someone (duress) to vote a certain way.

I could be mistaken, but I'm not sure what law Google would have broken...

posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 12:03 PM
a reply to: Elton

Campaign finance laws

The exact same laws Dems were accusing the National enquirer for breaking for paying for stories to bury them to help trump

Googles “silent donation” to draw traffic to Democrat groups would be a far greater violation of the same laws

posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 12:04 PM
Google is a private company and can do what they want. (Capitalism) If people don't like it, they can choose not to use it or buy an android phone and if enough people do this then Google will go under. (The rule of supply and demand).

posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 12:07 PM

originally posted by: JimD350
Google is a private company and can do what they want. (Capitalism) If people don't like it, they can choose not to use it or buy an android phone and if enough people do this then Google will go under. (The rule of supply and demand).

Then wouldn’t the National enquirer also be a private company that can do what they like?

Yet the Dems are going on and in about how them paying for stories to suppress means trump broke the law and should be impeached

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in