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.
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.