The Maricopa County Republican Committee (MCRC) has announced a partnership with research psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein’s American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT) to fight Big Tech election interference in Arizona.
Dr. Epstein has been researching election interference efforts by search engines like Google since 2013. He estimates that in the 2016 presidential election, “Google probably shifted between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Hillary Clinton.”
Epstein says Google uses ephemeral experiences, which he describes as “very brief experiences that we all have every day looking at news feeds, search results, search suggestions, and answer boxes,” which are normally “stored nowhere and gone forever.”
“All the content that they serve up is ephemeral,” says Epstein, and because it is not stored anywhere, it is almost impossible to prove what Google is doing to influence peoples’ views. Epstein and his team have developed systems for capturing ephemeral content to expose Google’s biased and possibly illegal search outcomes.
The Gateway Pundit has previously reported on Dr. Robert Epstein’s research on election interference favoring Democrats.
In the summer of 2020, he also blew the whistle and warned Congress during his testimony that Google was manipulating voters “on a massive scale.”
Epstein says told The Gateway Pundit is a Democrat who supported Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, but “I don’t support, you know, the idea that a private company is not accountable to the public, that’s not elected, is not part of our democracy, is controlling our elections,” he said.
Maricopa County Republican Committee delivered the following press release, announcing their partnership and mission to “battle future election meddling before it occurs using AIBRT.”
As explained by Dr. Epstein, the pie charts below show that when Google and Youtube are recommending to children and teens news-related searches and videos, “it’s coming virtually always from liberal news sources.” This is despite a “balanced” number of news sources on the internet leaning conservative, liberal, and independent.
Epstein will speak tonight at the MCRC Executive Meeting to present more findings to the Executive Board members and Maricopa County Legislative District Chairmen.
To learn more and help Dr. Epstein with his investigation and the extremely high costs of this mission to stop big tech’s election interference, you can visit mygoogleresearch.com.
To learn even more about the investigation, also visit AmericasDigitalshield.com.
The Gateway Pundit correspondent Jordan Conradson spoke to Dr. Epstein last week about his research on Google’s manipulation of search results to influence elections and “re-engineer humanity” in accordance with their company values.
Read below:
Conradson: Can you explain what the MCRC’s pie charts are showing us?
Epstein: This is brand new data that we’ve been collecting from children and teens. And that pie chart shows that when Google is recommending to children and teens anything that’s news related, it’s coming virtually always from liberal news sources. Now, I lean liberal, so doesn’t bother me too much. But you know, the fact is, it’s wrong. Now. Google would say, oh, that’s just what’s out there, and that’s absolutely not true because I can show you another graph that what’s out there is pretty much balanced, believe it or not; it’s like a third, a third, a third. It’s pretty much balanced and 98 or so percent of content that they’re showing to children and teens is it’s coming from liberal news sources and that is consistent with a lot of the leaks from the company, whistleblowers’ statements, emails, PowerPoint presentations videos, that basically show that the company is engaging in widespread social engineering around the world. They’re literally trying to change the human mind and to re-engineer humanity according to and I quote, from one of their videos, “according to company values.” And that’s what we’re doing as we’re collecting a massive amount of data, not just from Google but from other tech companies, looking at actual content that they’re sending to real people. And it’s very disturbing,
Conradson: It sounds like from what you said, it could be to shape society and shape the next generations to believe certain things. Can you speak more about why they’re doing this?
Epstein: They talk within the company quite openly about algorithmic fairness. So, I have documents now that come from Google that talk about algorithmic fairness. What do they mean by that? They mean that right now an algorithm that might be showing you pictures of firefighters, it might show a lot of men, primarily men, and a lot of them are macho-looking men. So that might actually be a fair picture of firefighters right now. But they don’t think it’s fair. So, what they will do is adjust their algorithms so they show a balance of every kind of minority with whites, sometimes becoming the minority, and every kind of gender, and all of a sudden, we seem to have far more than two kinds of gender. And so, in other words, they’re adjusting their algorithms so that by their terms, according to their values, they’re making the content that they show people more and more “fair.” And they call this algorithmic fairness. So, I mean, that’s just one example. I can show you how this works sometimes. A lot of young people, especially, use Google Docs. Of course, companies do too and so does our government. But a lot of young people use Google Docs to write their papers and to write up their assignments for school. This is true in elementary school, middle school, high school, and college, and Google provides all that software for free to all educational institutions because of its surveillance value. But the point is, when a young person is typing something on Google Docs and uses a gender term, for example, Google Docs now automatically offers correction. In other words, it’s literally engineering the language now that young people use when they talk about certain issues. This is social engineering that is literally straight out of 1984. In that novel, this is called Newspeak, and Google is brazenly you know, trying to alter the human mind, alter human speech in a way that matches, and again, I’ll quote “company values.”
Conradson: we’re seeing this also with, as we spoke about earlier, news sources all across the internet. For example, if you search “The Gateway Pundit” on Google, it will take you to only websites that try to discredit The Gateway Pundit, including Wikipedia. Same when you search for an exact headline, if you search for key terms, it’s only going to show leftist newspapers, which is not surprising to me, but it really grinds my gears sometimes that I’m seeing content filtered in such a way. Can you explain how exactly they’re doing this?
Epstein: Yes, that’s what my team and I have been studying for more than 10 years. And we’ve been studying and measuring the impact that that kind of bias has. In recent years, we’ve developed systems, monitoring systems, we call them, for preserving this type of content because within the company they call this kind of content ephemeral experiences. So in a leak of emails to the Wall Street Journal in 2018, one Googler says to others, “how can we use ephemeral experiences to change people’s views about Trump’s travel ban?” Well, as it happens, I’ve been studying exactly that since 2013. And I was shocked to see it in print coming from internal emails that Google told me that I’m not just imagining this, they really do it. And, you know, so what do they do? They use ephemeral experiences. Those are these temporary experiences, very brief experiences that we all have every day looking at news feeds, search results, search suggestions, and answer boxes. Practically all the content that they serve up is ephemeral. And, you know, it affects us, it gets us to click on something, and then it disappears. It’s stored nowhere, and it’s gone forever. So, no one can go back in time and find out what kind of content they were showing people. Or, using the Google Home device, which is like Alexa, or using a Google Assistant, which is an Android phone, what kind of content they were telling people because it’s all ephemeral. But we’ve developed systems for capturing ephemeral content. We started small in 2016. We preserved, before the 2016 presidential election, 13,000 searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo and looked for political bias in search results. But with each successive election, we built bigger and bigger systems. And in 2022, in the midterms, we preserved not 13,000 ephemeral experiences, but 2.4 million ephemeral experiences on Google, Bing, Yahoo, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and more, and we’re still in the process of analyzing the data. And also we started building a large-scale permanent monitoring system in all 50 states. This is going to be permanent. And this is the only way you can get companies like Google to back down and stop the manipulation, stop the indoctrination, because by capturing this content, which normally disappears forever, you can announce, day by day by day, hour by hours, in fact, you can announce what you’re finding. You can make it visible to the world, you know. Whatever social engineering they’re engaging in, you can make it visible, and they don’t like that. We’ve seen it already. It’s funny, that when we expose what they do, they stop doing it. They have to because if they don’t stop doing it, not only is their brand getting tarnished, but they open themselves up to losses and very, very serious regulation.
Conradson: Obviously, this flow of information is affecting our elections. Can you speak more about how they’ve been influencing our elections with these ephemeral experiences?
Epstein: Yes, we do two kinds of things. Over here, with my left hand, I’m pointing to the research, the basic research we do, of new forms of online influence. And so, in controlled experiments, we measure precisely what kind of impact a particular manipulation has on people, and their opinions, and even on the vote. So, we know the numbers from the experiments that we do. Then, over here with my right hand, I’m pointing to the other kind of thing we do, which is set up these big monitoring systems, which are getting bigger and bigger. And there, we can actually see the content or hear the content that these companies are sending to real people. I have to emphasize “real people,” because there are other researchers, who are usually being funded by Google, who study the bias issue by using an anonymized computer, one single anonymized computer, and then they look at content on Google and then they conclude, “oh, there’s no bias.” That’s, that’s never going to show you the bias because you have to look at content that they’re sending to real people because they personalize content. They know who you are, and they personalize what they send you. So the only way you can do this, which is very, very labor intensive, very expensive, is you have to recruit real registered voters, and now, we’re also recruiting, with the parent’s permission, we’re recruiting their children. And you have to create special kinds of software and hardware that allows you to look over their shoulders and preserve the content that real people, real voters are actually seeing. And then you have to aggregate it and analyze it. And we’ve gotten better and better at doing this over the years. So if you put those two things together, the left hand and the right hand, you can actually calculate in an election how many votes they might have shifted. And in 2016 We estimated because the level of bias favoring Hillary Clinton was so high, and I was supporting Hillary Clinton, by the way, but the level of bias on Google, not on Bing or Yahoo, just on Google’s search engine was so high that Google probably shifted between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Hillary Clinton with no one being aware that they were doing this. And except for our monitoring system, with no paper trail being left for authorities. Jump to the 2020 election, again and use the amount of data that we preserve, which was quite a lot, suggested that Google and other tech companies, mainly Google, had shifted about 6 million votes to Joe Biden, whom I also supported. But I don’t support, you know, the idea that a private company is not accountable to the public, that’s not elected, is not part of our democracy, is controlling our elections. That I do not support. So, that’s what we’re trying to combat, and we’re making very rapid progress because at this point in time, we’re building the world’s first nationwide digital shield, that will be fully operational by the end of 2023. And that will force these companies to stay out of our elections, stay away from our kids, for the foreseeable future, possibly for many years.
Conradson: Can you tell me more about this digital shield idea?
Epstein: I’ve been proposing it for a long time, but we’re building it. We not only recruited, in 2022, 2,742 registered voters, which allowed us to monitor election content through their computers. In other words, through the computers of 2,742 real voters, who were politically balanced. Not only did we do that, but we continued after the midterms to recruit more. And so, in the midterms, we were focusing mainly on I think eleven or twelve swing states in 2022. But, as of today, we now have more than 6,200 field agents in all 50 states, and we are increasing that number every day. And by the end of this year, we expect to have a very large panel in all 50 states, plus thousands of children and teens. We now have more than 1000, and we are 24 hours a day this is running; it’s actually running. we are collecting data that these people, these adults, these teens, these children are being sent by the tech companies, and we are looking for signs of indoctrination, signs of manipulation, evidence of bias and censorship. And we’re not just collecting it and analyzing it, we are archiving it that’s where the real threat is to these companies, and they know it. Because we’re archiving this information, which is normally lost forever, it means that there are possibilities here not just for lawsuits, not just the regulations, but criminal charges being brought against executives at these companies because, among other things, if they’re stacking the deck in their content to favor one political party or to favor one candidate, they’re breaking the law. They’re violating campaign finance law. Because you can’t make large donations, either of money or property of any sort called in-kind donations, you cannot make large donations of a political nature without declaring that. They’re not declaring it. Now, I have heard people from Google say, “yeah, but it doesn’t cost us anything.” But, that’s not the issue. You know, they’re sending out content to shift the vote, millions of votes, so even though it doesn’t cost us anything to do so, that’s not the question. The question is, what would it cost the average citizens to do so on their platform? $50 million dollars, $100 million? What if you wanted to send out, let’s just say on election day, you wanted to send out “go vote” reminders on Google’s homepage, which is seen 500 million times a day in the United States, what if you wanted to send out “go vote” reminders on their homepage, say just to Republicans because you like Republicans? What would that cost you? It costs Google nothing. It shifts hundreds of thousands of votes, but it’s not worth nothing. It’s worth a massive fortune. And so, these companies have been breaking the law over, and over, and over again, by supporting particular parties and candidates without declaring it.
Conradson: And we see the same thing on social media, on Facebook, on Twitter, Instagram, where they’re censoring certain information. For example, the Hunter Biden laptop story that’s been called the biggest campaign finance violation in history. Additionally, since you’re focusing on the swing states, you know, here in Maricopa County, we had officials with the Maricopa County elections and Katie Hobbs, who was the Secretary of State at the time, working with CISA and Twitter to censor tweets and information they disagree with. Is the federal government working with Google to suppress this information?
Epstein: Well, there’s a very strong partnership there. Google has been working with agencies of the federal government, literally, before the company was even founded. The founders have received some startup money, and some research money from US intelligence agencies, which by the way makes good sense, because the intelligence agencies, to this day, use platforms like Google to look for possible threats to national security. I kind of get that. But yeah, Google has a very close relationship with a number of agencies at the federal level. But, I’m not sure that’s the issue here because they’re a very secretive company. Right now, Elon Musk is not only restructuring Twitter, he’s also revealing a lot. He’s even just released some of the code that’s used in Twitter’s algorithm, the algorithm that determines what content people get shown. So, he’s kind of turning Twitter into a kind of open-source platform. But, Facebook and Google are extremely secretive, so we don’t ever really know what their policies are and who they’re supporting, who they’re not supporting, and what their goals are. We don’t really know. The closest we come is when a whistleblower comes forward and actually divulges something, or when some documents leak, or their content leaks from the company. And of course, now, my team knows more than anybody, because we’re preserving so much ephemeral content from Google and other companies. And by the way, it’s not just Google, because we’re adding, very soon now, we’re adding Instagram, we’re adding TikTok. So, we’re going to have an absolutely, unbelievably massive amount of data to sift through 24 hours a day. But it has to be done. There’s no way to know what these companies are doing and how they’re engineering our society and other societies around the world if you don’t monitor.
Conradson: You mentioned that there’s potential for lawsuits, there’s potential for criminal charges. What do you expect to happen?
Epstein: I’ve been working with Attorneys General around the country since 2016. I’ve been working with members of Congress, at least since 2017, I think, and you know, I did testify before a congressional committee in 2019. So, I’m working with all kinds of people, federal and state. So, I’m in touch with lots of people who, when the time comes, will be using every possible method to get the word out. And I will be or my team will be a source of data. That’s what’s been lacking here all along. There’s just been too many anecdotes, too many conspiracy theories, too much gossip going viral. This is different. This is methodical, rigorously collected data. It is politically balanced, and we can see now for the first time what these companies are actually showing people, and it’s very disturbing. I can tell you that the more we learned about what these companies are doing, the more concerned we become. And to me, it’s almost despicable that my team is the only team in the world that does this kind of work.
The grassroots Maricopa County GOP is committed to restoring election integrity and exposing all the ways Democrats are cheating.
via magatribute
