Voters will try to educate themselves about applicants
Most will probably use search engines to conduct this research and form an opinion on applicants according to their findings. The usual principles of online reputation management don’t directly translate into politics due to the character of elections along with the odd, somewhat sleazy strategies of most successful campaign managers.
Journalists have the incentive to scrutinize every detail by a candidate’s previous and present it in the least favorable context. Politicians will expect to be under continuous attack from resistance powered by giant media firms. As this is the modus operandi of bi-partisan American politics, those who consume information about candidates are always wary of any attempt to ‘spin’ facts. This atmosphere makes online reputation management for politicians hard; there is one caveat.
Research created two fascinating discoveries: First, the outcomes of actual elections can be determined by manipulating search engine results and moment, the manipulation can be accomplished without individuals being aware of it. Indeed, changes in search engine results pages can have drastic impacts on the results of elections and online reputation management for politicians is getting to be a cornerstone of successful campaigning.
The analysis concluded beyond question which manipulating search results for queries about a candidate may impact the outcome of an election. In reality, the report goes so far as to state “that unregulated search rankings could pose a significant danger to a democratic system of government” The parameters of the conclusion require an election is a little margin and ‘swing votes’ be accessible.
Do you utilize Android, Chrome, Google, or Gmail? Do your friends ever email you things about politics? Do you go to CNN.com? Did you alter your public Facebook photograph to resemble a rainbow last month? Google hires geniuses who can teach computers to ascertain where you stand politically with a great deal of accuracy, and current search results (and ads) that will be more relevant for you based on this info.
A recent post about Wired saying “If executives at Google had decided to study what we’re studying, they might easily happen to be flipping elections for their liking with no one with any thought.” The concept that any single for-profit entity might have so much energy in society is somewhat Orwellian, but it is a bold accusation to create with no evidence and slightly beside the point. We presume Google’s algorithm is designed to be non-partisan while we all know for real that online reputation management businesses are contracted to perform services that almost invariably involve tinkering with search engine benefits. The purpose is that search engine results could be manipulated to change election outcomes.
The timing of Info
Any decent SEO could envision a strategy to move search outcomes around for politicians temporarily. As Wired pointed out: “In the presidential campaign, whoever the Democratic and Republican nominees are will already have high page ranks because they will have a massive number of inbound links, among Google’s key metrics.”
The report goes on to report that placement in search results was of evident importance and recency of information was a handy tool in swaying swing votes towards one individual over another. This means that online reputation management for politicians is an essential part of an effort and offers a massive advantage over competition utilizing conventional campaigning methods.
The results were intriguing as the impartial message reached a total of 61 million people and created 340,000 further votes. Perhaps more interestingly, the societal tweaking of the word to add consumers’ close friends who’d already voted increased the likelihood that the message could compel a user to vote with a factor of four. Wired asserts, “Using the extensive information the social network maintains on all its readers, it may hypothetically push specific messaging to supporters or foes of certain legislation or candidates.”
We’ll again assume that the provider is nonpartisan and ran this study exclusively for study purposes. Even if this assumption is accurate, advertisers are always biased. Facebook makes (a lot of) money by promoting advice to advertisers; anyone in the industry can feasibly design a slightly more first advertising campaign to emulate the results and target the most receptive swing voters with biased advice about either candidate. Massive budgets aimed at ‘purple’ states from the days immediately preceding an election would be very likely to generate more votes based on these findings.
Free Will and Big Data
The findings of the analysis are somewhat disconcerting because it’s possible for a company to manipulate the population into making governmental decisions. This is not a new phenomenon. After all, Fox News is apparently the first one to point out that they’re not biased. There’s not any persuasive evidence to suggest that businesses like Google and Facebook are actively attempting to influence voters, but there is evidence to suggest that these platforms can be utilized by both parties to increase the success of a campaign, generate votes, and instruct voters on legislation and applicants.
Online reputation management for politicians is becoming more crucial than traditional methods of campaigning and will continue to develop more critical in the future.