"What weâ(TM)re talking about here is a means of mind control on a massive scale that there is no precedent for in human history." That may sound hyperbolic, but Robert Epstein says itâ(TM)s not an exaggeration.
Except that it is an exaggeration.
What they didnâ(TM)t know was that the search engine had been rigged to display the results in an order biased toward one candidate or the other. For example, in the most extreme scenario, a subject would see 15 webpages with information about Gillardâ(TM)s platform and objectives followed by 15 similar results for Abbott.
So if someone searched for material on Abbott ... it would show sites for Gillard?
Like if you did a search for how to do something in Linux ... but all you got back were Microsoft pages.
I'd dump that browser. Is that an option? If not, then your "research" is flawed.
Very few subjects noticed they were being manipulated, but those who did were actually more likely to vote in line with the biased results. "We expect the search engine to be making wise choices," Epstein says. "What theyâ(TM)re saying is, 'Well yes, I see the bias and thatâ(TM)s telling me â¦ the search engine is doing its job.'"
More likely that they didn't care enough to void your "research".
But merely changing which candidate appeared higher in the results still increased the number of undecided Indian voters who would vote for that candidate by 12% or more compared with controls.
So someone who cannot be bothered to do any research on the people who are actually running is 12% more likely to vote the way a computer suggests s/he should?
How about another experiment where something positive is compared to something negative? How would you go about manipulating the search results to that "kick me in the face" is chosen over "give me ice cream"?
Undecided voters are undecided because:
a. there isn't any real difference between politicians.
b. THEY DO NOT CARE WHO WINS.
Give them a reason to care and see if the results are the same.