Podcasts > PBD Podcast > Big Tech’s Effect on Elections w/ Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell | PBD Podcast | Ep. 398

Big Tech’s Effect on Elections w/ Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell | PBD Podcast | Ep. 398

By Patrick Bet-David

In this episode of the PBD Podcast, Patrick Bet-David and Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center explore big tech's potential influence on elections. They discuss studies alleging suppression of conservative candidates in Google search results and censorship of stories, such as the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, by major platforms like Twitter.

The conversation also centers around tech giants' unprecedented power, market dominance, and perceived political bias among their largely liberal workforce. Bet-David and Bozell speculate on interference tactics, including biased fact-checking and censorship policies, that could sway the 2024 elections and raise concerns about the implications for electoral integrity.

Listen to the original

Big Tech’s Effect on Elections w/ Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell | PBD Podcast | Ep. 398

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Apr 17, 2024 episode of the PBD Podcast

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

Big Tech’s Effect on Elections w/ Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell | PBD Podcast | Ep. 398

1-Page Summary

Tech companies' influence on elections

Patrick Bet-David raises concerns about tech giants like Google allegedly interfering in elections, often favoring Democratic candidates.

Google's alleged interference in elections

The Media Research Center (MRC) study claimed Google interfered 41 times over 16 years, pushing 39 Republican candidates lower in search results. Bet-David also found searches for "Trump or Biden 2024" yielded mostly left-leaning sources.

Double standards for big tech

Brent Bozell argues big tech acts like publishers picking election winners while enjoying legal protections meant for neutral platforms, unlike media companies vulnerable to defamation suits.

Tech's monopoly power

Bozell highlights Google's 92% market share globally, making competition from smaller players like Microsoft's Bing (2% share) very difficult. Big players often acquire potential rivals to eliminate competition.

Censorship by big tech companies

Bet-David and Bozell discuss tech's ability to limit the spread of news damaging to certain political parties.

Suppression of Hunter Biden laptop story

Bet-David mentions the 2020 censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story by tech companies, which Bozell claims was due to claims of Russian collusion from the Justice Department.

Use of "fact checking" to suppress stories

The discussion implies "fact-checking" policies may serve as tools for big tech to censor content.

Tech employees' political bias

The debate touches on a predominant liberal bias among big tech employees, which may influence platforms like Google.

Over 90% of employee donations to Democrats

Per Open Secrets data, employees at major tech firms like Netflix, Twitter, Airbnb, Apple overwhelmingly donated over 90% to Democratic candidates in recent elections.

Likely 2024 election interference

Discussing potential 2024 interference tactics, Bet-David and Bozell focus on Twitter actions, while Oshana brings up immigration and voting rules.

Censorship of Republican candidates

Bet-David suggests tech firms may silence stories benefiting Republicans like Trump, following Twitter's suppression of the Hunter Biden story in 2020.

Biased fact-checking against Republicans

Bozell anticipates continued "fact-checking" practices by tech firms to disadvantage Republican candidates while shielding Democrats.

Musk's openness limited by Twitter staff bias

While praising Musk's professed openness, Bozell worries Twitter employees' biases could undermine this through tactics like shadow banning conservatives.

Facilitating illegal voting

Oshana ties Musk's border concerns to voting integrity issues. Bozell criticizes opposition to stricter voter ID requirements, implying an agenda to enable illegal voting.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Google has faced allegations of interfering in elections by manipulating search results to favor certain political candidates. Critics claim that Google has pushed down search results for Republican candidates and promoted left-leaning sources in search queries related to political figures like Trump and Biden. These allegations suggest that Google's search algorithms may have been biased in favor of specific political ideologies, potentially influencing public opinion and election outcomes. The debate around Google's alleged interference highlights concerns about the power and influence of tech companies in shaping political discourse and electoral processes.
  • The Media Research Center (MRC) study claimed that Google interfered in elections by allegedly manipulating search results to favor certain political candidates. The study highlighted instances where Republican candidates were pushed lower in search results compared to their Democratic counterparts. This raised concerns about the potential impact of tech companies on the fairness and neutrality of electoral processes.
  • Legal protections for neutral platforms, often referred to as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, shield online platforms from being held liable for content posted by users. This protection allows platforms like social media sites to moderate content without being treated as the publisher of that content. It aims to foster free expression and innovation on the internet by providing a legal safeguard for platforms to manage user-generated content. However, debates continue on whether these protections should be revised to hold platforms more accountable for the content they host.
  • In 2020, tech companies like Facebook and Twitter limited the spread of a controversial story about Hunter Biden's laptop due to concerns about its sourcing and potential misinformation. The story alleged ties between Hunter Biden, the son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden, and business dealings in Ukraine. Critics accused the tech platforms of censorship and bias, while the companies cited their policies on handling potentially misleading or unverified content. The incident sparked debates about the role of tech companies in moderating information during election periods and raised questions about the balance between free speech and preventing the spread of misinformation.
  • "Fact-checking" is a process where claims or information are verified for accuracy. In the context of tech companies, it can be used to label or limit the visibility of content that is deemed false or misleading. Critics argue that this practice can sometimes be used to suppress stories or viewpoints that may not align with the political leanings of the fact-checkers or the platform. This can lead to accusations of bias or censorship within the online space.
  • Open Secrets is a non-profit organization that tracks money in U.S. politics. They provide data on political contributions, including donations made by employees of various companies to political candidates and parties. This data helps to understand the political leanings and preferences of individuals within different industries or organizations.
  • Shadow banning is a practice where a user's content is hidden from others without their knowledge. In the context of social media platforms, shadow banning can be used to limit the visibility of certain users' posts or accounts without outright banning them. This can lead to reduced engagement and reach for the shadow-banned user, effectively silencing their voice on the platform. The concern is that this practice may disproportionately target conservative voices, leading to allegations of bias and censorship.
  • Facilitating illegal voting typically implies actions that make it easier for ineligible individuals to cast votes. Voter ID requirements are regulations that mandate voters to show identification before casting their ballots, aiming to verify their identity and eligibility to vote. Some argue that strict voter ID laws help prevent voter fraud, while others believe they can disenfranchise certain groups who may face challenges obtaining the required identification. The debate around voter ID requirements often centers on balancing election integrity and accessibility to voting.

Counterarguments

  • Google's search algorithms are complex and designed to provide relevant and authoritative content; any perceived bias could be a result of these algorithms rather than intentional interference.
  • Big tech companies argue that they are platforms, not publishers, and that they strive to enforce their policies impartially regardless of political affiliation.
  • Google's market share is a result of consumer choice, and competitors are free to innovate and attract users to their platforms.
  • Tech companies have policies to combat misinformation and harmful content, which may sometimes result in limiting the spread of certain stories, but this is not necessarily indicative of a political agenda.
  • The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story was defended by some platforms as a measure against potential misinformation during a sensitive time before an election, and not necessarily as a partisan action.
  • Fact-checking is a tool used by many organizations to verify information and could be seen as an effort to maintain the integrity of information rather than a means of censorship.
  • Employee donations to political parties are personal choices and may not reflect the policies or actions of the companies they work for.
  • Concerns about election interference should be addressed with evidence, and any actions taken by tech companies should be transparent and in accordance with their stated policies.
  • Elon Musk's ownership of Twitter and his stated commitment to free speech may lead to changes in how content moderation is handled, which could address concerns about bias.
  • Discussions about voting integrity and voter ID laws are complex and involve balancing the prevention of fraud with ensuring access to voting for all eligible citizens.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Big Tech’s Effect on Elections w/ Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell | PBD Podcast | Ep. 398

Tech companies' influence on elections

Recent discussions and studies suggest that tech companies, particularly Google, may be exerting an undue and pervasive influence on election outcomes, raising questions about fairness and accountability in the digital age.

Google's alleged interference in elections favoring Democratic candidates

The power of Google searches to sway voter decisions is under scrutiny, with evidence pointing to a potential bias in search result listings.

Details from MRC study on 41 instances of alleged Google election interference over 16 years

Patrick Bet-David refers to a Media Research Center (MRC) report that alleges Google has interfered in elections 41 times over the past 16 years, often favoring Democratic candidates. The MRC study found that in the 22 most contested Senate races, an overwhelming majority of Republican candidates were pushed to the bottom of the first search page or to the less-viewed second page. Rick Santorum experienced a smear on Google, which was not remedied even after he requested it be taken down. Moreover, the MRC claimed that while Google censored Hillary Clinton in favor of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign, it supported Clinton in the 2016 election. Out of 41 instances identified by MRC, two involved Democrats, and 39 involved Republicans.

Bet-David also points to a more direct test, searching for "Trump or Biden 2024" and observing that the sources in the search results were predominantly left-leaning, with none from Fox News, interpreted as an indication of bias.

Double standards of big tech companies acting like publishers while claiming to just be platforms

Brent Bozell highlights the discrepancy in accountability faced by tech companies compared to traditional publishers. He argues that companies like Google and Facebook are effectively picking winners and losers in elections without being held to the same legal standards. These companies enjoy the legal protections afforded ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Tech companies' influence on elections

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The Media Research Center (MRC) study alleges that Google interfered in elections 41 times over 16 years, often favoring Democratic candidates. The study found that in contested Senate races, Republican candidates were often pushed down in search results. Google was accused of censoring Hillary Clinton in 2008 but supporting her in 2016, among other instances. The study highlighted instances where Google search results appeared biased towards left-leaning sources, potentially influencing voter perceptions.
  • The Covington Catholic incident involved a confrontation between students from Covington Catholic High School and a Native American activist at the Lincoln Memorial in January 2019. The incident was captured on video and sparked widespread controversy and debate about the students' behavior and the media's coverage of the event. CNN and The Washington Post were among the media outlets that initially reported on the incident, which later led to discussions about media bias, misinformation, and the rush to judgment in the digital age.
  • Big tech companies like Google have significant market dominance, making it challenging for smaller competitors to enter the market and compete effectively. This dominance can stifle innovation and limit consumer choice by reducing competition. When big tech companies acquire potential competitors, it can further consolidate ...

Counterarguments

  • The MRC report's methodology and data collection may be subject to bias, as the Media Research Center is known for its conservative stance, which could influence its findings.
  • The algorithmic nature of search engines like Google is complex and relies on numerous factors, including relevance, user behavior, and personalization, which may account for variations in search results rather than intentional bias.
  • The presence or absence of certain news outlets in search results for specific queries does not necessarily indicate bias, as it could be a reflection of the outlets' search engine optimization (SEO) strategies, the freshness of content, or other algorithmic factors.
  • Tech companies have policies and oversight mechanisms in place to ensure neutrality, and any perceived bias could be the result of unintentional algorithmic patterns rather than deliberate interference.
  • The legal distinction between a platform and a publisher is complex, and tech companies operate under current laws, such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides them with certain protections based on their role as platforms.
  • The market share of tech companies is often a result of consumer choice a ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Big Tech’s Effect on Elections w/ Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell | PBD Podcast | Ep. 398

Censorship and suppression of news and opinions by big tech companies

Patrick Bet-David and Brent Bozell discuss how major tech companies have the ability to limit the spread of news stories, particularly those that might be damaging to particular political figures or parties.

Examples of censoring stories embarrassing to Democrats (Hunter Biden laptop story)

During the conversation, it is mentioned that during the 2020 elections, the story from the New York Post about Hunter Biden's laptop was censored by tech companies. Bozell brings up the incident, noting it as an example of how censorship is executed and stating that it was censored due to claims from the Justice Department about Russian collusion.

Use of "fact checking" to suppress stories

Although no information is provided in the transcript chunk regarding "fact-checking," the broader dialogue suggests that big tech's polic ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Censorship and suppression of news and opinions by big tech companies

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The Hunter Biden laptop story involves a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, the former U.S. Vice President and 2020 presidential candidate. The story gained attention due to its alleged contents, including emails and images, which raised questions about Hunter Biden's business dealings and potential implications for his father's political career. The controversy surrounding the story centered on its authenticity, with debates over its origins, credibility, and the motivations behind its release to the public. The incident became a focal point during the 2020 U.S. presidential election, with discussions about media coverage, censorship by tech companies, and the impact of such narratives on political discourse.
  • The incident involving the New York Post and the Justice Department during the 2020 elections centered around a story about Hunter Biden's laptop. The New York Post published an article about the laptop, but major tech companies restricted its spread, citing concerns about the origins of the information and potential misinformation. The Justice Department's mention of Russian collusion in connection with the story added a layer of complexity to the censorship debate. This incident highlighted the challenges and controversies surrounding the role of tech companies in moderating news content and the implications for freedom of speech and information dissemination.
  • Big tech companies use fact-checking as a tool to verify the accuracy of information shared on their platforms. This process involves assessing the truthfulness of claims made in news stories or posts. If a story is flagged as false or misleading through fact-checking, the platform may reduce its visibility or label it as unreliable to prevent its spread. This practice aims to co ...

Counterarguments

  • Big tech companies argue that their actions are not about censorship but about preventing the spread of misinformation and protecting the integrity of elections.
  • The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story was defended by some as a measure to prevent potential misinformation from influencing the election, given the lack of verification of the materials at the time.
  • Claims of Russian collusion or foreign interference are serious allegations that, if true, would warrant caution in the dissemination of potentially compromised material.
  • Fact-checking is a standard practice in journalism and online content moderation to ensure the accuracy of information, and it is not inherently biased.
  • The use of fact-checking and content moderation tools can be seen as an effort to maintain a standard of truth and prevent the spread of false information on platforms.
  • There is a debat ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Big Tech’s Effect on Elections w/ Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell | PBD Podcast | Ep. 398

Political bias of big tech employees skewed heavily Democratic

The podcast discussion touches on the political leanings of big tech employees, suggesting that search results from platforms like Google may be influenced by a predominant Democratic bias among the workforce, even though exact figures or direct claims about political donations or affiliations aren't specified in the shared content.

Statistics on employee donations going over 90% to Democrats

The debate references a report from Open Secrets, which shows employee donation data by party affiliation during midterm elections.

According to the report, tech company employees demonstrated a significant preference for Democratic candidates in their political contributions. Netflix employees nearly unanimously supported Democratic candidates, while Twitter, Airbnb, Apple, Stripe, Lyft, Google (Alphabet), Salesforce, and Facebook all saw over 90% of contributions going to the left, indicating ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Political bias of big tech employees skewed heavily Democratic

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Open Secrets is a nonprofit organization that tracks campaign finance and lobbying data in the United States, advocating for transparency in political donations. It was formed from the merger of the Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute on Money in Politics. Open Secrets' reports provide insights into political spending, donations, and potential conflicts of interest in the political landscape.
  • Midterm elections in the United States are held halfway through a president's four-year term. During these elections, a portion of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are up for election. This staggered system ensures that not all seats are contested at the same time. It is a crucial event that can shift the balance of power in Congress.
  • Political contributions data by party affiliation indicates the political leanings of individuals based on which political party they support through financial donations. In this context, the data shows that employees of various tech companies overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates through their contributions during midterm elections. The statistics reveal a strong preference among tech employees for financially supporting the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. This data is often used to analyze the political inclinations and preferences of employees within specific industries or organizations.
  • Tesla employees are often perceived as less politically homogeneous compared to som ...

Counterarguments

  • Employee personal donations do not necessarily reflect corporate policies or the neutrality of their products and services.
  • Political donations are a form of free speech and do not inherently indicate bias in professional conduct or output.
  • The political leanings of employees may not directly influence the algorithms or search results, which are designed to be impartial and based on relevance and quality of information.
  • The tech industry is located in regions with higher concentrations of Democratic voters, which could skew the political donations of employees without implying a systemic bias in the industry.
  • Political donations from employees are not the only measure of a company's political stance or influence; corporate donations and lobbying efforts can also play a significant role and may not align with employee contributions.
  • The presence of a predominant political leaning among employees does not preclude the existence of internal checks and balan ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Big Tech’s Effect on Elections w/ Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell | PBD Podcast | Ep. 398

Likely big tech election interference tactics in 2024 campaign

As the 2024 election campaign draws near, Patrick Bet-David and Brent Bozell discuss potential tactics for election interference by big tech companies, focusing on Twitter's actions, while Vincent Oshana brings up immigration and voting regulations.

Continued censorship and "fact checking" of Republican candidates and stories embarrassing to Democrats

Patrick Bet-David references Twitter's suppression of the New York Post story during the 2020 elections as a model for what could occur in the 2024 campaign. He suggests that tech companies are inclined to silence certain stories, indicating that companies like Twitter might prevent dissemination of information that could benefit candidates like Trump.

Brent Bozell anticipates that tech companies may continue practices of censorship and so-called "fact-checking" to sway the next presidential campaign. He suggests such actions could work against Republican candidates and shield Democrats from stories that might embarrass them.

Elon Musk's commitment to more openness on Twitter likely limited by biased employees

Despite Elon Musk's commitment to open dialogue on Twitter, Brent Bozell worries that Musk's aspirations could be limited by Twitter employees' biases. Bozell raises the issue of shadow banning by Twitter's staff, which he claims particularly targets conservative Republicans, as an indication of these biases.

Pushing open borders and easier voting rules without sufficient ID checks to enable illegal voting

Vincent Oshana touches upon Elon M ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Likely big tech election interference tactics in 2024 campaign

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Shadow banning on Twitter is a practice where a user's content is hidden from others without their knowledge. This can involve making their posts invisible or less prominent to other users, aiming to discourage unwanted behavior. The term originated in online forums and has evolved to include various visibility measures to manage problematic users or spammers. It is a way to limit a user's impact on a platform without outright banning them.
  • The connection between open borders and the voting process is often debated in the context of election integrity. Critics argue that open borders could potentially lead to illegal voting if voting regulations are not stringent enough, as individuals without proper identification could exploit the system. This debate often revolves around discussions on voter ID requirements and the potential vulnerabilities in the voting process that could be exacerbated by open borders policies. The concern is that lax voting rules combined with open borders may create opportunities for individuals who are not eligible to vote to participate in elections.
  • Some states in the U.S. do not require voters to show a photo ID when casting their ballots. This means that individuals can vote without presenting a government-issued identification card. The debate around voter ID laws often revolves around concerns about voter fraud and ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. Critics argue that strict ID requirements can disenfranchise certain groups of voters who may face challenges in obtaining the necessary identification.
  • ...

Counterarguments

  • Big tech companies have policies in place to prevent misinformation and may apply these policies across the political spectrum, not specifically targeting one party.
  • Fact-checking is a standard practice to ensure the accuracy of information and is not inherently biased against any political ideology.
  • Elon Musk's ownership of Twitter could result in changes to company policy that reflect his commitment to free speech, potentially reducing the impact of individual employee biases.
  • Shadow banning allegations are often disputed, and there is a lack of transparent evidence to confirm that it is used to target political ideologies systematically.
  • Voting without strict photo ID requirements does not necessarily lead to illegal voting, as there are other methods to verify voter identity and eligibility.
  • The relationship between immigration policies and election integrity is complex, and there is no direct evidence that open borders directly lead to widesp ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA