LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+18 18 0
Published 3 years ago with 1 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • madjo

    That article makes no sense to me. You could also say how Facebook could rig the 2016 elections by showing more quotes from candidate A than from candidate B on a users frontpage. Or how Twitter can rig the 2016 elections, using the promoted tweets thing.

    BTW, influence does not necessarily mean rig. People still have their own choice to make, and make up their own mind. And if you don't share the same viewpoints as candidate A, no matter how much he/she appears at the top of a search page, you should not vote for candidate A.

    It's not just about trust, it's about whether you and the candidate's world view matches, that's the reason to vote for someone. Not if he/she seems trustworthy enough.

Here are some other snaps you may like...