How Google Can Control and Manipulate Public Opinion
In Part 7, Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today, offers some disturbing information on how search engines can be manipulated for political purposesThis article is reprinted from Bill Dembski, design theorist William Dembski’s Substack, with his permission.
Robert Epstein is a psychologist and senior research fellow at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. The former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, he is known for his research on behavioral science, digital influence, and the intersection of psychology and technology. He focuses especially on human autonomy in the digital age. In recent years, Epstein has become a prominent critic of the power wielded by large tech companies, especially Google, arguing that their control over information flow poses a serious threat to democratic processes and individual freedom.
Image Credit: Irfanan - He introduced the concept of the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME), which describes the ability of Google and other search engines to adjust their algorithms to shift opinions and behavior—particularly voter preferences—without users being aware of their influence. Through controlled experiments, Epstein and his colleagues have shown that undecided voters can be significantly swayed by biased search rankings, tailored autocomplete suggestions, and targeted notifications. The SEME operates subliminally and yet substantively affects voting decisions. Because the SEME is not currently subject to effective oversight or regulation, it raises important concerns about election integrity and the manipulation of public opinion.
What the case studies show
A few case studies of the SEME are worth reviewing here. In a 2015 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Epstein and Ronald E. Robertson conducted five experiments involving over 4,500 undecided voters in the United States and India. They found that presenting search results favoring a particular political candidate could shift voting preferences by more than 20 percent, with some demographic groups experiencing shifts up to 80 percent. Notably, the manipulation was often undetected by participants, highlighting the subtle yet powerful influence of search engine rankings on democratic processes.
In a subsequent 2017 study, Epstein and his team replicated the SEME findings and explored interventions to mitigate its effects. They discovered that alerting users to potential bias in search rankings reduced the shift in voting preferences from 39.0 percent to 22.1 percent, and more detailed alerts further reduced it to 13.8 percent. However, the only method that completely eliminated the effect was alternating search results to provide balanced exposure, suggesting that search engine algorithms need to be carefully managed to preserve electoral integrity.
As still another example in this vein, a 2024 study published in PLOS ONE by Epstein and Alex Flores introduced the Video Manipulation Effect (VME), examining how biased video content ordering on platforms like YouTube can influence political opinions and voting preferences. Using a YouTube simulator, they conducted two randomized, controlled, double-blind experiments with 1,463 eligible U.S. voters. The findings revealed that when video sequences favored a particular candidate, voting preferences shifted between 51.5 and 65.6 percent overall, with some demographic groups experiencing shifts exceeding 75 percent. This study underscores the significant impact that algorithm-driven content recommendations can have on public opinion, especially given that a substantial portion of video consumption is guided by such algorithms.
The sheer dominance of YouTube
Image Credit: Christian Wiediger - As it is, YouTube is widely considered to be the world’s second-largest search engine after Google, primarily due to its massive user base, the volume of searches conducted on the platform, and the scale of content available. With over 2.5 billion logged-in users per month and more than a billion hours of video watched daily, YouTube functions as a search engine for video content, making it a critical platform for discovery and information. And as noted above, YouTube is the second most popular website by domain, after Google. YouTube’s search functionality is integral to how users discover and consume content, and it remains a dominant force in the search ecosystem, second only to Google itself. And of course, Google owns YouTube.
Epstein’s efforts to curb Google’s ability to manipulate public opinion and voter preferences is wide-ranging, involving a number of initiatives and websites, as detailed in an interview with Epstein by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Amaryllis Fox. At the heart of Epstein’s efforts to rein in Google is monitoring Google’s day-to-day behavior as it engages different internet users. As it is, Epstein’s efforts to monitor Google have faced significant logistical and financial challenges, particularly in building a politically balanced, nationwide network of “field agents” or “watchdogs” whose digital experiences with Google can be captured and analyzed in real time.
Because Google customizes its content per user and doesn’t archive the ephemeral data it delivers (such as autocomplete suggestions, homepage messages, and video recommendations), Epstein’s team must observe and preserve these interactions directly on users’ devices. Recruiting such agents is costly—$25/month per person—and the project has grown to 13,000 monitors in all 50 states, requiring over $325,000 per month in ongoing expenses, or nearly $4 million annually. This financial burden necessitates ongoing public support, and Epstein has urged individuals to sponsor monitors to sustain the program’s reach and effectiveness.
Beyond funding, Epstein faces the problem of infiltration: he reports that when calls have gone out for volunteers, Google has sent fake participants to sabotage the monitoring effort. To counter this, he avoids accepting open volunteers and instead uses secure recruiting, strict vetting, and non-disclosure agreements to prevent shills from contaminating the dataset. Epstein’s web initiatives that spearhead this operation include TechWatchProject.com, AmericasDigitalShield.com, and MyGoogleSearch.com. America’s Digital Shield provides a public dashboard where users can view real-time search-engine data trends. Epstein’s goal is to create a robust, legally admissible archive of Google’s algorithmic manipulations that can be used by legislators, attorneys general, journalists, and public advocacy groups to pressure Google into ceasing election interference and content manipulation.
Epstein’s recommendations to protect privacy
Image Credit: pvl0707 - To combat Google’s undue influence, Epstein makes both personal and public policy recommendations. On the personal front, in his article “Seven Simple Steps Toward Online Privacy,” Epstein outlines a strategy to protect personal privacy online and to reduce the influence of surveillance-based tech companies, particularly Google. He begins by noting that he has not received a targeted ad since 2014 due to his rigorous privacy practices. Epstein warns that Google’s suite of tools — Gmail, Chrome, Search, Android, and Google Home — are not free services but surveillance instruments designed to gather personal data for behavioral profiling and ad targeting. To counter this, he recommends abandoning Gmail in favor of encrypted alternatives like Protonmail, replacing the Chrome browser with Brave, and using Brave Search instead of Google. He also advises avoiding Android devices due to their constant offline tracking, and urges users to discard Google Home devices, citing their ability to eavesdrop even when idle.
Beyond these primary tools, Epstein suggests several additional privacy-preserving practices. He advocates clearing cache and cookies regularly to remove tracking scripts, using a reliable VPN like NordVPN to mask internet activity, and adopting the Signal app for secure messaging and calls. For group video conferencing, he recommends BraveTalk as a secure alternative to Zoom and Skype. He underscores the importance of systemic awareness by promoting platforms like RestorePrivacy.com, which offer vetted lists of alternatives to major surveillance-based tech services. Epstein’s overarching message is that users should opt out of exploitative platforms wherever possible and actively reclaim their digital autonomy — not through apathy or resignation, but through concrete, available, and affordable alternatives.
Next: What public policies can help us achieve a less biased internet?
Here are the previous instalments: The evilization of Google—and what to do about it Part 1: Understanding Google’s dominance over the internet. Nothing is totally evil. Still, there’s enough evil in Google that it is, for now, more on the side of Darth Vader than Obi-Wan Kenobi.
The utter dependence of online businesses on Google. Part 2: An SEO business needs to please Google or else it is dead in the water. Google’s re-presentation of information created by others makes it less likely that users will visit them. Thus Google’s business expands at their expense.
Image Credit: Jane - A potential chink in Google’s armor: Loss of legal immunity Part 3: Currently, Google is legally protected from the consequences of frequent copyright violation. One outcome of the resulting ad clutter is that, unless you are top of the search, you’re likely wasting time trying to make money off organic search.
Becoming a slave to Google: How it happens Part 4: After an update, you always have to second guess what Google did. You become a reverse engineer who never sees under the hood. This leads to a mentality that always tries to second guess whether Google will favor some piece of content or way of expressing it.
Google’s power over online business: Monopolistic and extravagant Part 5: To help people understand Google’s power over online businesses, I ask. What if the road on which the local Walmart is located suddenly became a dirt trail? It’s as though Google is doing everything in its power to throttle organic traffic, driving that traffic to their sponsored ads, increasing its bottom line.
and
How Google search rank disrupted the alternative health industry Part 6: Google’s bias is as real as ever, but the firm has deflected it to an impersonal policy that gives an air of objectivity. Having a Wikipedia entry gets you instant credibility even though so much of Wikipedia is substandard and politically biased.
