# Is Google politicizing search results? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 19, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759 "2016-06-19T05:59:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/1 "2016-06-19T05:59:06Z")
Disclaimer: I know little about Hillary Clinton’s dirty washing, if such it be, and care less. Were I American rather than English I’d certainly vote for her in preference to Trump. This question is quite genuine. OK, I just came across [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_tWyvnH0xY). It claims that Google is manipulating its search suggestions for Hillary Clinton to remove any that may be damaging to her. For instance type in _Hillary Clinton ind_ and the top Google suggestions are _Hillary Clinton Indiana_ and _Hillary Clinton India_; of _Hillary Clinton indictment_ there is no sign. All other main search engines, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc have _Hillary Clinton indictment_ as the top suggestion. I tried it and that is indeed the case. Other HC queries are mentioned which give odd results on Google. The remainder of the 12-minute video goes on to explore connections between the owners of Alphabet and the Democrats but that’s irrelevant to my question. Is Google playing dirty pool here or not? I need the straight dope on this rather than the assertions of a YT video with a picture of Guy Fawkes and a pseudo-robotic voiceover. ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/2 "2016-06-19T06:05:23Z")
[Wow.](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Is+Google+politicizing+search+results%3F) ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/3 "2016-06-19T06:17:41Z")
If they are, they’re not doing a good job. “Hillary ind” without her last name is full of indictment stuff. And I get the same thing with “Donald Trump law.” Google gives me lawyer, laws, law school, Lawrence O’Donnell, law firm, and lawn. The first one on Bing is lawsuits. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/4 "2016-06-19T06:35:00Z")
And if i type “Hillary Clinton” the third auto suggestion is “Hillary Clinton emails” ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/5 "2016-06-19T08:11:30Z")
“The facts have a well-known liberal bias” ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/6 "2016-06-19T08:39:02Z")
My old grandpa always used to tell me, “Never trust strange videos you meet on the internet”. Wise man. And prescient too - he died in 1951. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/7 "2016-06-19T09:22:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Choose any famous American who has been accused of a serious crime and Google their name followed by the letters “cri,” and in no case does Google suggest the word “crimes.” That’s true even of people like Kaczynski and Madoff, who are famous only because they faced prosecution for serious crimes. > > Apparently, Google has a policy of not suggesting that customers do searches on people’s crimes. I have no inside knowledge of why it runs its search engine this way. Maybe Google is just uncomfortable with having an algorithm suggesting that people search for other people’s crimes. > **[There's no evidence that Google is manipulating searches to help Hillary Clinton](https://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google-debunked)** > > Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology,... ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/8 "2016-06-19T09:22:26Z")
I’m curious whether there is some legal or moral difference between [FoxNews.com](http://FoxNews.com) politicizing its information and [Google.com](http://Google.com) politicising its? How about between Wikipedia and Conservapedia? Frankly, we can only wish that the forces of reason in the world of information were as deliberate in pushing for informed truth as the forces of hypocrisy are in pushing lies. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/9 "2016-06-19T10:40:14Z")
Everyone knows that Google search results can be manipulated. There are businesses that will help a company improve its ranking. [Here](http://www.total-seo.co.uk/) is a random one. I am sure that political parties would not shrink from using these methods. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/10 "2016-06-19T11:27:13Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Everyone knows that Google search results can be manipulated. There are businesses that will help a company improve its ranking. [Here](http://www.total-seo.co.uk/) is a random one. I am sure that political parties would not shrink from using these methods. Yes, but these don’t work for getting specific hits or suggestions to rank **lower** , which is what this theory is about. ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/11 "2016-06-19T11:52:35Z")
All media, and the internet companies that provide media, are bias in one way or another. Caveat emptor when you consume some news of any sort. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/12 "2016-06-19T14:13:55Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Disclaimer: I know little about Hillary Clinton’s dirty washing, if such it be, and care less. Were I American rather than English I’d certainly vote for her in preference to Trump. This question is quite genuine. Nitpick: the American expression is “dirty laundry.” That’s one difference that I didn’t know until now existed between America and England. ---
**Author:** ![Me\_Billy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e480ec/32.png) [@Me\_Billy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Me_Billy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/13 "2016-06-19T14:29:17Z")
Actually read about what Joe Kennedy did to get his son elected President. You will be shocked at all the people/businesses/media he was able to “pay off”. Book: “The Sins of the Father” by Ronald Kessler And the Democrats have no monopoly on this “paying off” either! ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/14 "2016-06-19T14:41:49Z")
No. [Snopes is your friend.](http://www.snopes.com/google-manipulate-hillary-clinton/) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/15 "2016-06-19T15:15:47Z")
OK so now by definition ANY result of a search, a publication index, a scientific study, etc., that does not conclude first and foremost our desired line of thought, or does not start off with our desired line of thought as the default, is to be presumed manipulated by bias? Are we really moving into an age where \*\*nobody \*\*has credibility? I could just as well say that it sounds more like her opponents are whining that they haven’t been able to googlebomb the algorithm to drive away any positive result, I have jacksquat proof of that either. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/16 "2016-06-19T16:48:33Z")
Experiment: Find a person who’s complaining that Google is biased towards liberals and then ask them whether they think the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2016, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/17 "2016-06-19T22:41:34Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > Everyone knows that Google search results can be manipulated. There are businesses that will help a company improve its ranking. [Here](http://www.total-seo.co.uk/) is a random one. I am sure that political parties would not shrink from using these methods. You’re talking about the advertiser side of the internet: Anyone with a web site can take SEO steps to improve the ranking of their own site in Google searches. But there’s another side, and it _might_ be more relevant to OP’s question: Google also keeps extensive details about the searches people do, and learns a whole lot about the users doing the searches, some of which it can identify with the specific people using Google (especially if you are signed on while searching). As Google learns more about you, the user, it adjusts the search results it shows you according to Google’s idea of what you are most likely searching for. In a sense, Google builds an echo-chamber around you, optimizing the search results to show what Google thinks you most want to see. This could explain, for example, why people who do searches for, e.g., liberal topics like Hillary Clinton, pro-gun-control sites, abortion pro-choice information, etc., will over time begin to see more and more of just that kind of results. This is known as the “Internet Filter Bubble” that you can get trapped in. Another user who searches for conservative information will, over time, begin to see more and more of that. Here is an easy-to-read illustrated explanation of search engine bubbling by DuckDuckGo: [Escape Your Search Engine’s Filter Bubble](http://dontbubble.us/) ETA: The page shows, for example, that one person might google “Egypt” and get pages of news stories about political protests in Egypt, while another user might google “Egypt” and get pages of travel and tourism information about Egypt. ---
**Author:** ![jharvey963](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/54ee81/32.png) [@jharvey963](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jharvey963)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/18 "2016-06-20T23:29:47Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > “The facts have a well-known liberal bias” Also heard it as “Reality has a liberal bias.” ---
**Author:** ![fiddlesticks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddlesticks/32/18129_2.png) [@fiddlesticks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiddlesticks)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/19 "2016-06-21T04:33:28Z")
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias” was a line from Stephen Colbert’s White House Correspondents Dinner speech in 2006. “The facts have a well-known liberal bias” was a line from Rob Corddry on The Daily Show in 2004. Inspired, perhaps, by this gem… “We’re an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality.” - George W. Bush White House staffer ([Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush - The New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html)) ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759/20 "2016-06-21T12:39:16Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Disclaimer: I know little about Hillary Clinton’s dirty washing, if such it be, and care less. Were I American rather than English I’d certainly vote for her in preference to Trump. This question is quite genuine. > > OK, I just came across [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_tWyvnH0xY). It claims that Google is manipulating its search suggestions for Hillary Clinton to remove any that may be damaging to her. > > For instance type in _Hillary Clinton ind_ and the top Google suggestions are _Hillary Clinton Indiana_ and _Hillary Clinton India_; of _Hillary Clinton indictment_ there is no sign. All other main search engines, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc have _Hillary Clinton indictment_ as the top suggestion. I tried it and that is indeed the case. Other HC queries are mentioned which give odd results on Google. > > The remainder of the 12-minute video goes on to explore connections between the owners of Alphabet and the Democrats but that’s irrelevant to my question. Is Google playing dirty pool here or not? I need the straight dope on this rather than the assertions of a YT video with a picture of Guy Fawkes and a pseudo-robotic voiceover. As pointed out above, no. But why would you level the accusation of “dirty pool” at them. They are a privately held company with no obligations to political candidates or the public at large regarding their collective political leanings. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-google-politicizing-search-results/757759.md?page=2)