Now another group has been doing a study of how Google can be used to influence people… without the user’s knowledge, which is a type of thought control. The Study is titled: Democracy at risk from new forms of Internet influence. Well, that is pretty clearly about influencing voters.

Auschwitz

The TL:DR take away is: after studying in the lab, in RL elections in India, and elections in other countries they find changing the 3^rd or 4^th search result to either positive or negative can swing a voter’s decision.

To talk about what they were learning they needed new terms and measures. VMP or vote manipulation power is one term entering the field of certain behavioral studies. In studies in the lab they averaged about 49% of people voting for the target of positive based insertions and 49% voting against targets of negative insertions. A VMP of 49. In RL in India results ranged from 25 to 72 VMP.

There are a number of factors that degrade VMP between exposure to any influence and voting at the poll. But, many elections are determined by less than 4 to 8% margins. So, it doesn’t take much to change a close election. What we are learning is this subtle form of influence is likely 3 to 9 times more effective than is needed to change an election’s outcome.

Would a company that spends millions on lobbying be tempted to save some money or gain an additional edge by manipulating the information they display? Would they want a politician elected that would be favorable to their interests? Of course. It is a matter of how far they would go.

We know the media has been avoiding any serious coverage of the Planned Parenthood controversy about the selling baby body parts and violating several federal laws. The issue we see being publicized in most media is whether the videos were obtained legally… (Reference) If both sides were breaking the law, shouldn’t we be going after both?

Which is more news worthy, how an illegal recording of someone admitting to a crime was obtained or the selling of human body parts to make money? Babies born in that 20 to 24 week-old period often survive.  The stats are:

• 21 weeks and less = 0% survival
• 22 weeks = 0-10%*
• 23 weeks = 10-35%
• 24 weeks = 40-70%
• 25 weeks = 50-80%
• 26 weeks = 80-90%
• 27 weeks = >90%
• 30 weeks = >95%
• 34 weeks = >98%

Murders of a pregnant woman 20± to 24 weeks along and up are tried as double murders, mother and child. It is hard to claim we are only talking fetal tissue at 20-24 weeks and especially when even the PP doctors refer to lungs, kidneys, and other organs. What is the difference between a fetus and a viable baby?

But why the one sided coverage by most of the media? Last I heard on numbers ABC had spent less than a minute on the story. FNC has given it massive coverage. Why such a huge disparity in coverage? There are agendas at work. But, do you get to decide based on facts or is it OK for the big players to manipulate you?

Depending on which side of the political fence you are on FNC is right wing propaganda or the alphabet  media is the left wing propaganda machine. If you aren’t watching both, how can you know what is actually happening? How can you know the facts without the positive or negative spin your source is placing on it? And most probably without any way to know if they are spinning you?

Since your search results are different than mine, how can anyone know if Google is manipulating search results for Google’s benefit or some agenda? Or to move a politician into office that supports laws that favor them? Or that favors the ideology of those controlling or working at Google?

It would take a significant effort to analyze what Facebook or Google might be doing and find an influence they might deliberately push. Could we know in time to protect an election from undue influence? Probably not. Remember. If you use AdWords you can target people in a country, state, city, or zip code. With that kind of targeting ability keeping track of what Google may do is practically impossible.

What law are we going to try to pass to protect our elections? Not to mention enforce. In a world with a more and more of a socialist/fascist mind set a law seems appropriate to many. So, deciding what those that can influence us can do and cannot do, especially with search results, would seem a good thing to them. But, that would be just another step in taking away an individual’s free speech on the path to totalitarian control. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot playing into the hands of politicians that want to control everything.

There is no easy way to resolve this issue of thought control and influence. But, once you understand the mind control that is coming at you, you at least have a chance to resist.