[Swiftwater Gazette] Fwd: Outside the Box - The New Mind Control

Rik Sandberg sanderico1 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 11:41:55 EST 2016


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rik Sandberg <sanderico1 at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:40 AM
Subject: Fwd: Outside the Box - The New Mind Control
To: Steve & Barb Sandberg <sosandberg58 at gmail.com>, Josh Sandberg <
js_brickie at frontiernet.net>


I'm not sure what to do about this but it's probably better if more people
know about it than not.

Rik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mauldin Economics <wave at frontlinethoughts.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:52 AM
Subject: Outside the Box - The New Mind Control
To: sanderico1 at gmail.com


Send To A Friend
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HFCDDfxzHxIDABRAEiFw916IaXAJ1QzPbE6OZRDNN6gVw-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BVttPDXyGxqb3prztELQm63lYClJl5fPcQzVQlFJMgkJ0bRvMCZhpdzno-2FrbndI66pA2xGaGyyEZwhkeP-2FMe1crbKZAmYIUsTbRC00GAJdCyQfAeIaW0l5EKF9JrUXA-2B3IvHDV-2FBNuZoqKQEKhoAo35sgVZAfSzeEYL01rEWLVmuRivOs1SVIXsFS7EDkgiZrdsF-2FiGVwjWJ1Ixs12vh7Qw-3D-3D>
| View as PDF
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=GoKyo837vf7SS31qySxLAlJcHCMrNby5-2BUqtSr75zakSe-2B8UDglx91JOdF-2FDbVOlNA42FGeGfhLHNYpmdgHI2wT689GrrW1sGJ-2BJMa4CZ-2Bzc50oRaYmhpjKJm0IR9Tji_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2B44wSfmhtHyXe-2F5L191JtqywC7Uszxif-2FX4nxSlzgEJXYt4I1EuRoT1Lra7e-2BD3SIqw8fmhuq6FtsIPua-2Fz-2BNo0tEhqrMC31IYcpQ8SxPLJzWipj4VvV8J8P0Ku7UVAfEg7XEmtzYnIPyIQtmshCMq5Or-2FB-2BtjNC82NR8YAImcQCdzPrxOkfdn-2BoqMz-2Fi6H1ybqbDRKWT375a9rid-2BbXZ-2Bw-3D-3D>
| View Past Articles
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HHzjVBM-2B1XyaezKWjuhTEMnRSEOkZDZAslyjYXIXxULgg-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BBbxHksuE3GixKB47fUPt2sKKydoLQUrpYpcLpXMlbylEYaFUgYg7AGBWl1gryWtLtOFUmwM30m3nygal3cla5xNIZDcYiNfc5H0qNhDEFmeWp6WBGxpLIdf6p-2B3MUu8QZuJn-2Bg6yowi3Dh5lLy5joJHKaDwwwltF7L-2F1AeCezrjMH3QvL3I2YPLkGejyxyc3caGST4tYjBzx6GR9ZuEFNw-3D-3D>
| Permissions/Reprints
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HGu6-2FPiPZZYjK2r7haaagdM_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BC5Ro2x5tiIFIyWtNplO-2BDJSi5423kgkxe3uWKBqDRqJ-2B3gKn6AzkIpp2UgXC95nhonrAY3w-2BNesw5vZnqH8HEMv4P4mAgVDo2gIj43-2Fn7fKUnYnQprS-2FaohHdEhqFqlDtuXNIpQKVLgE94ckLZ7aBSqU-2Fj34vXMvD5PT2yYQ-2BTrPPHvi0NRmkzdJs5y5GBx0u1cmiVuUarlUcoe0gvgJRg-3D-3D>
[image: Outside the Box]
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HHzjVBM-2B1XyaezKWjuhTEMnQkwfYnqMLERzsz79yVpSBA-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BjeekM-2BT6BlluouVCWBHtsLTFiKIGp-2Fzrj4ahi2Kjnepo-2BDuPWS14-2BUPaKzYHVfQRQOuhk6MDkvZZ94kZno8XJMPVQRmK4uwftUGFZ57vG4CrIXGbcss9uFsxqZFfVZa-2BwkNVArGCne0USoCuQ9sWYim0WSmS5YYTS03nOMuPtfNfOifnBifbPvAxKKg8oRNYSJc5Qq6x6JRXaZPGcMNHCw-3D-3D>
The New Mind Control
John Mauldin | Feb 26, 2016

In today’s *Outside the Box,* Robert Epstein, a senior research
psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and
Technology in California and the former editor-in-chief of *Psychology
Today, *warns us of a insidious and pervasive new form of mind control:
search results.

That’s right, search results. And not just any search results: Google
search results. Since 2013 Epstein and colleagues have conducted a number
of experiments in the US and India to determine whether search results can
impact people’s political opinions*. *

Epstein points out that about 50 percent of our clicks go to the top two
items on the first page of results, and more than 90 percent of our clicks
go to the 10 items listed. And of course Google, which dominates the search
business, decides which of the billions of web pages to include in our
search results, and it decides how to rank them.

But surely, Epstein thought, a top search result would have only a small
impact on a person’s political choices. Not so! To Epstein’s surprise, in
his initial experiment he found that the proportion of people favouring the
(bogus, skewed) search engine’s top-ranked candidate increased by more than
48 percent! Also, 75 percent of the subjects in the study were completely
unaware that they were viewing biased search rankings.

He conducted several more experiments, including one that involved more
than 2,000 people from all 50 US states. In that experiment, the shift in
voting preferences induced by the researchers was 37 percent, and as high
as 80 percent in some demographic groups.

Epstein was still skeptical. He asked,

Could voting preferences be shifted with real voters in the middle of a
real campaign? … In real elections, people are bombarded with multiple
sources of information, and they also know a lot about the candidates. It
seemed unlikely that a single experience on a search engine would have much
impact on their voting preferences.

So off his team went to India. They arrived just before voting began in the
largest democratic election in the world, to select the nation’s prime
minister. They recruited 2,150 people from 27 of India’s 35 states and
territories to participate in their experiment. (To take part, they had to
be registered voters who had not yet voted and who were still undecided
about how they would vote.)

Again, Epstein predicted that their manipulation of search results would
produce only a very small effect, if any – but that’s not what happened. On
average, the researchers were able to shift the proportion of people
favoring any given candidate by more than 20 percent overall and by more
than 60 percent in some demographic groups. In addition, 99.5 percent of
participants showed no awareness that they were viewing biased search
rankings.

So this was all quite surprising. Says Epstein:

We published a detailed report
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi0IkGNwQN9Xn68pCtG0oPhPDvVMjJ6j0FxzuHKnGGeyx-2BGK1ugxHeJGCNp43NMJRqSggH7FRvPr1cHBfGuMakeI-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BLQXHSwBvDM0bdtIqcb1hdfONVNvtWBCvMvA-2BmJetwvCL-2BsDmjDWK3uMvJ2LNEydwe82dfbZNrzXRYODBHfxUTA2R7cQcK0Z3gCiCY6JqZZDvsLfuzYS1qn4xAGc9uGuITnKJtt2nT5ZOCLSxVo2pdevmJFfO8Eoy7rCdvcYzPpKYuIaaBGIvkfpN9Na2eswjsloqvdQJ930WbrrHURdxtA-3D-3D>
about our first five experiments … in the prestigious *Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences* (PNAS) in August 2015. We had indeed found
something important, especially given Google’s dominance over search.
Google has a near-monopoly on internet searches in the US, with 83 per cent
of Americans specifying Google as the search engine they use most often,
according to the Pew Research Center. So if Google favours one candidate in
an election, its impact on undecided voters could easily decide the
election’s outcome.

But that’s a big “could.” I was skeptical, too. Would Google ever act so
nefariously? Aren’t those Silicon Valley guys all live-and-let-die
free-market Libertarians? And then I thought again. The presidency of the
United States is a *big deal.* The president may not be all-powerful, but
he (or maybe, in the near future, she) is about as close as it comes on
this planet. And national elections – whether in this country or any other
– have never exactly been squeaky clean. They have always been about big
money, and in recent decades they have been about big media. Now, says
Epstein, they are also about big data.

So let’s say Google decided that it was in the best interests of all
concerned to do whatever it could to help us select our next president. How
might it go about it? Says Epstein,

(I)f Google set about to fix an election, it could first dip into its
massive database of personal information to identify just those voters who
are undecided. Then it could, day after day, send customised rankings
favouring one candidate to *just those people*. One advantage of this
approach is that it would make Google’s manipulation extremely difficult
for investigators to detect.

But it gets scarier – and a lot more real – when we remember that in the
2012 presidential election, Google and its top execs contributed more than
$800,000 to Barack Obama and just $37,000 to Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, have
you heard of The Groundwork? That would be the outfit that Quartz describes
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=YHITX156cKgQ2PsNawtUrQJkvDWKYA5ZY5mOkuoTivNQZMIcAc3YnhRTc25gh-2FNkFNiqeJz10BombYjEMyIqXNmiKK4QjRyWdQkTCcIjLgh59y6L2fTX4mMw91cYEquC0j7ZHMVqbbRlGPSDx17pSw-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BozYfOnKKmM0xIiGHqzMsFu2z5xzRiFgfaqOj19whb7u8gfjl-2BGoVfqRpuMtCokGZeLngAD8XRPhiHHqvNfQOzCbNV5fv0lUCd-2F3UWjIewekkQ-2FAZZDhY-2FPR0XiN7l4Bae1jl4BX2TTosQA7ZSPQ4RDhFWiaT3Yp53QYa7YywJGP75Bdc5JuvVCy45sGNVunobpx6LkASGqiHGb6Os7t5aA-3D-3D>
as “The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that’s working to put Hillary
Clinton in the White House” – Eric Schmidt being the executive chairman of
Google’s parent company, Alphabet.

(Amusing sidebar: Google “the groundwork” and then click on the No. 1
result. That’s right, you get this:

Just one page. No links. Sinister? You betcha.)

There’s more – a lot more – to Epstein’s cautionary tale, so I’ll get out
of the way and let him tell it.

But first, let me mention that although the Strategic Investment Conference
(May 24-27 in Dallas) is sold out, we’re trying hard to find a way to
accommodate a few more people without compromising the experience for those
who have already registered. We have created a waiting list, and you can
click on this link
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HHzJRH-2B2ZWwu69u-2FENPTckuGdbqa9AgDXHzONTK5u99V5i-2F0ufIjW62UlEGXAjyUBJTdM-2B0B7H8B6QCBZRBKvn3iU7QU36BRTqiz6VZnCcGV2LsE2o6Kf0OLDLT-2FJlreSg-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2Bjp3ValedzXPnsE-2ByFTQZ9bUcBIiC5RE0tVRu0SGA9XZ-2B8md0bCVLwvg2sbEOP59tYheBjduFZFrjXtJLrnpXLVlrYpHamAh4LYo9Z-2F3Gu6KhEk6dsfOHAsCEPx-2BcNofS1-2B0B0S5apPn30y5Y0CTp8282UuvbUB47xRmbXM0-2FQ9kBh7ic18j9NlEKDT0GgQ5oMYfR9nfjGX2R8T5y9CGMxw-3D-3D>
and pay a small fee (which is refundable) to get on it. Seriously, we
expanded the room this year and thought we were fine – then we sold out in
less than a month. I have friends calling me up and begging to get in.
Believe me when I say we are trying, but there is a space issue. So even if
we are BFF’s, get on that list! THEN call. The only way to be fair and to
save my sanity is to do this on a first-come, first-served basis. The line
is growing, so even though the conference is t hree months away, sign up
NOW!

Your searching for answers analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box
JohnMauldin at 2000wave.com <johnmauldin at 2000wave.com>

*Get John Mauldin's Over My Shoulder*

"Must See" Research Directly from John Mauldin to You
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HHcpkMom0gpua4XAV49hKR4U2FksSvMahw7IUOX9ZolG11e8LuJ3XZp7kplKxwGtYXvGpS9UXLJbXVF2fEjJowpuwiyhsXDuiLX7-2FPl-2BwFoJrxBfwtux94mUoC6oOZC-2BPQcg9migWui2tZPT2rbdghR_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2Bqjvljqy9BQL4YqQU-2BuvkxV0PgmrO5rLgwAA6bVC7tbu2f2dJC7fSxDnDIvys4BCfamUgUhqbKp9-2Fffjzb1mkF6HRpWD0-2FD2j8ctdz78c5z8eLvz-2FKhXz8QDHrJnR6t-2FXFAOyYj4fyUDJmpz832SIg5sgkH4aORNbo7IZeyvX61dm47s4iaDI3-2FgBoYWnXKqdJDsF6pal8-2BzKDGyr45SdqQ-3D-3D>

Be the best-informed person in the room
with your very own risk-free trial of *Over My Shoulder*.
Join John Mauldin's private readers’ circle, today.
*The New Mind Control*

*By** Robert Epstein *
(Originally published on Aeon.co
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=C-2BE3wM4g1SaD7igvBZzcGyT7RA0fhBQnDFvskd6uJ-2FXkoQThso3mmKhtN33JZH37-2BBfAg49Kda-2BMpU06oOx8gQ-2FKY7-2BHHJb2MutewdI52SEwgQxajh-2Fsi43hBkMAMZiB_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BKyyYNpUY3WIWAVuWC5ggRiRjBokvkqu8xqWgb5LVS4jbARs3oA-2FMhXYNZO-2BPOBhspHnjooxyZPovU9sXhTWHE6E9nXkzVl6SqtUVA7Kk-2F7zRWuHKc89z6mlKaLOIX3fBFrgFEpDfXwzkunztaBAUg9485PN0kQ1HQIEYjZjDK5XcSFfuXSwv5jPqkc7a5ULWOr2mtTYWTvdGAb9BNp175w-3D-3D>
)

*The internet has spawned subtle forms of influence that can flip elections
and manipulate everything we say, think and do.*

Over the past century, more than a few great writers have expressed concern
about humanity’s future. In *The Iron Heel* (1908), the American writer
Jack London pictured a world in which a handful of wealthy corporate titans
– the ‘oligarchs’ – kept the masses at bay with a brutal combination of
rewards and punishments. Much of humanity lived in virtual slavery, while
the fortunate ones were bought off with decent wages that allowed them to
live comfortably – but without any real control over their lives.

In *We *(1924), the brilliant Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin, anticipating
the excesses of the emerging Soviet Union, envisioned a world in which
people were kept in check through pervasive monitoring. The walls of their
homes were made of clear glass, so everything they did could be observed.
They were allowed to lower their shades an hour a day to have sex, but both
the rendezvous time and the lover had to be registered first with the state.

In *Brave New World* (1932), the British author Aldous Huxley pictured a
near-perfect society in which unhappiness and aggression had been
engineered out of humanity through a combination of genetic engineering and
psychological conditioning. And in the much darker novel *1984* (1949),
Huxley’s compatriot George Orwell described a society in which thought
itself was controlled; in Orwell’s world, children were taught to use a
simplified form of English called Newspeak in order to assure that they
could never express ideas that were dangerous to society.

These are all fictional tales, to be sure, and in each the leaders who held
the power used conspicuous forms of control that at least a few people
actively resisted and occasionally overcame. But in the non-fiction
bestseller *The Hidden Persuaders* (1957) – recently released in a
50th-anniversary edition – the American journalist Vance Packard described
a ‘strange and rather exotic’ type of influence that was rapidly emerging
in the United States and that was, in a way, more threatening than the
fictional types of control pictured in the novels. According to Packard, US
corporate executives and politicians were beginning to use subtle and, in
many cases, *completely undetectable* methods to change people’s thinking,
emotions and behaviour based on insights from psychiatry and the social
sciences.

Most of us have heard of at least one of these methods: *subliminal
stimulation, *or what Packard called ‘subthreshold effects’ – the
presentation of short messages that tell us what to do but that are flashed
so briefly we aren’t aware we have seen them. In 1958, propelled by public
concern about a theatre in New Jersey that had supposedly hidden messages
in a movie to increase ice cream sales, the National Association of
Broadcasters – the association that set standards for US television –
amended its code to prohibit the use of subliminal messages in
broadcasting. In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission opined that
the use of such messages was ‘contrary to the public interest’. Legislation
to prohibit subliminal messaging was also introduced in the US Congress but
never enacted. Both the UK and Australia have strict laws prohibiting it.

Subliminal stimulation is probably still in wide use in the US – it’s hard
to detect, after all, and no one is keeping track of it – but it’s probably
not worth worrying about. Research suggests that it has only a small
impact, and that it mainly influences people who are already motivated to
follow its dictates; subliminal directives to drink affect people only if
they’re already thirsty.

Packard had uncovered a much bigger problem, however – namely that powerful
corporations were constantly looking for, and in many cases already
applying, a wide variety of techniques for controlling people without their
knowledge. He described a kind of cabal in which marketers worked closely
with social scientists to determine, among other things, how to get people
to buy things they didn’t need and how to condition young children to be
good consumers – inclinations that were explicitly nurtured and trained in
Huxley’s *Brave New World*. Guided by social science, marketers were
quickly learning how to play upon people’s insecurities, frailties,
unconscious fears, aggressive feelings and sexual desires to alter their
thinking, emotions and behaviour without any awareness that they were being
manipulated.

By the early 1950s, Packard said, politicians had got the message and were
beginning to merchandise themselves using the same subtle forces being used
to sell soap. Packard prefaced his chapter on politics with an unsettling
quote from the British economist Kenneth Boulding: ‘A world of unseen
dictatorship is conceivable, still using the forms of democratic
government.’ Could this really happen, and, if so, how would it work?

The forces that Packard described have become more pervasive over the
decades. The soothing music we all hear overhead in supermarkets causes us
to walk more slowly and buy more food, whether we need it or not. Most of
the vacuous thoughts and intense feelings our teenagers experience from
morning till night are carefully orchestrated by highly skilled marketing
professionals working in our fashion and entertainment industries.
Politicians work with a wide range of consultants who test every aspect of
what the politicians do in order to sway voters: clothing, intonations,
facial expressions, makeup, hairstyles and speeches are all optimised, just
like the packaging of a breakfast cereal.

Fortunately, all of these sources of influence operate competitively. Some
of the persuaders want us to buy or believe one thing, others to buy or
believe something else. It is the competitive nature of our society that
keeps us, on balance, relatively free.

But what would happen if new sources of control began to emerge that had
little or no competition? And what if new means of control were developed
that were far more powerful – and far more *invisible* – than any that have
existed in the past? And what if new types of control allowed a handful of
people to exert enormous influence not just over the citizens of the US but
over most of the people on Earth?

It might surprise you to hear this, but these things have already happened.

To understand how the new forms of mind control work, we need to start by
looking at the search engine – one in particular: the biggest and best of
them all, namely Google. The Google search engine is so good and so popular
that the company’s name is now a commonly used verb in languages around the
world. To ‘Google’ something is to look it up on the Google search engine,
and that, in fact, is how most computer users worldwide get most of their
information about just about everything these days. They *Google* it.
Google has become the main gateway to virtually all knowledge, mainly
because the search engine is so good at giving us exactly the information
we are looking for, almost instantly and almost always in the first
position of the list it shows us after we launch our search – the list of
‘search results’.

That ordered list is so good, in fact, that about 50 per cent of our clicks
go to the top two items, and more than 90 per cent of our clicks go to the
10 items listed on the first page of results; few people look at other
results pages, even though they often number in the thousands, which means
they probably contain lots of good information. Google decides which of the
billions of web pages it is going to include in our search results, and it
also decides how to rank them. How it decides these things is a deep, dark
secret – one of the best-kept secrets in the world, like the formula for
Coca-Cola.

Because people are far more likely to read and click on higher-ranked
items, companies now spend billions of dollars every year trying to trick
Google’s search algorithm – the computer program that does the selecting
and ranking – into boosting them another notch or two. Moving up a notch
can mean the difference between success and failure for a business, and
moving into the top slots can be the key to fat profits.

Late in 2012, I began to wonder whether highly ranked search results could
be impacting more than consumer choices. Perhaps, I speculated, a top
search result could have a small impact on people’s opinions about things.
Early in 2013, with my associate Ronald E Robertson of the American
Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=iMBhf1gMVKGE3kNEXgpKAS-2BF4xVt9qA-2FBzhfRrXsPfM-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BhrjQxUzUDR7kaCJP3zy-2BU-2BnVrY6yiX86MRkWrsPpyTB5jmrTmDuTngH0A9VEBb2qzAqKHmZP1P0pin0rDH4JGbfLmFy0ZX2Mt7X-2BrsuAlFhbhadfB1Mrv2rkqzqu1qdGMw9MpgHFEFsqcr1e4XTSrTTgYCY68ZC8AMrq8Qr6BPyMnXAsIwizALBeIw70MIk-2BmL-2FT3NtEQW3hSX7EEvrVWA-3D-3D>
in Vista, California, I put this idea to a test by conducting an experiment
in which 102 people from the San Diego area were randomly assigned to one
of three groups. In one group, people saw search results that favoured one
political candidate – that is, results that linked to web pages that made
this candidate look better than his or her opponent. In a second group,
people saw search rankings that favoured the opposing candidate, and in the
third group – the control group – people saw a mix of rankings that
favoured neither candidate. The same search results and w eb pages were
used in each group; the only thing that differed for the three groups was
the ordering of the search results.

To make our experiment realistic, we used real search results that linked
to real web pages. We also used a real election – the 2010 election for the
prime minister of Australia. We used a foreign election to make sure that
our participants were ‘undecided’. Their lack of familiarity with the
candidates assured this. Through advertisements, we also recruited an
ethnically diverse group of registered voters over a wide age range in
order to match key demographic characteristics of the US voting population.

All participants were first given brief descriptions of the candidates and
then asked to rate them in various ways, as well as to indicate which
candidate they would vote for; as you might expect, participants initially
favoured neither candidate on any of the five measures we used, and the
vote was evenly split in all three groups. Then the participants were given
up to 15 minutes in which to conduct an online search using ‘Kadoodle’, our
mock search engine, which gave them access to five pages of search results
that linked to web pages. People could move freely between search results
and web pages, just as we do when using Google. When participants completed
their search, we asked them to rate the candidates again, and we also asked
them again who they would vote for.

We predicted that the opinions and voting preferences of 2 or 3 per cent of
the people in the two bias groups – the groups in which people were seeing
rankings favouring one candidate – would shift toward that candidate. What
we actually found was astonishing. The proportion of people favouring the
search engine’s top-ranked candidate increased by *48.4 per cent*, and all
five of our measures shifted toward that candidate. What’s more, 75 per
cent of the people in the bias groups seemed to have been completely
unaware that they were viewing biased search rankings. In the control
group, opinions did not shift significantly.

This seemed to be a major discovery. The shift we had produced, which we
called the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (or SEME, pronounced ‘seem’),
appeared to be one of the largest behavioural effects ever discovered. We
did not immediately uncork the Champagne bottle, however. For one thing, we
had tested only a small number of people, and they were all from the San
Diego area.

Over the next year or so, we replicated our findings three more times, and
the third time was with a sample of more than 2,000 people from all 50 US
states. In that experiment, the shift in voting preferences was 37.1 per
cent and even higher in some demographic groups – as high as 80 per cent,
in fact.

We also learned in this series of experiments that by reducing the bias
just slightly on the first page of search results – specifically, by
including one search item that favoured the *other *candidate in the third
or fourth position of the results – we could *mask* our manipulation so
that few or even *no* people were aware that they were seeing biased
rankings. We could still produce dramatic shifts in voting preferences, but
we could do so *invisibly*.

Still no Champagne, though. Our results were strong and consistent, but our
experiments all involved a foreign election – that 2010 election in
Australia. Could voting preferences be shifted with real voters in the
middle of a real campaign? We were skeptical. In real elections, people are
bombarded with multiple sources of information, and they also know a lot
about the candidates. It seemed unlikely that a single experience on a
search engine would have much impact on their voting preferences.

To find out, in early 2014, we went to India just before voting began in
the largest democratic election in the world – the Lok Sabha election for
prime minister. The three main candidates were Rahul Gandhi, Arvind
Kejriwal, and Narendra Modi. Making use of online subject pools and both
online and print advertisements, we recruited 2,150 people from 27 of
India’s 35 states and territories to participate in our experiment. To take
part, they had to be registered voters who had not yet voted and who were
still undecided about how they would vote.

Participants were randomly assigned to three search-engine groups,
favouring, respectively, Gandhi, Kejriwal or Modi. As one might expect,
familiarity levels with the candidates was high – between 7.7 and 8.5 on a
scale of 10. We predicted that our manipulation would produce a very small
effect, if any, but that’s not what we found. On average, we were able to
shift the proportion of people favouring any given candidate by more than
20 per cent overall and more than 60 per cent in some demographic groups.
Even more disturbing, 99.5 per cent of our participants showed no awareness
that they were viewing biased search rankings – in other words, that they
were being manipulated.

SEME’s near-invisibility is curious indeed. It means that when people –
including you and me – are looking at biased search rankings, *they look
just fine*. So if right now you Google ‘US presidential candidates’, the
search results you see will probably look fairly random, *even if they
happen to favour one candidate*. Even I have trouble detecting bias in
search rankings that I *know* to be biased (because they were prepared by
my staff). Yet our randomised, controlled experiments tell us over and over
again that when higher-ranked items connect with web pages that favour one
candidate, this has a dramatic impact on the opinions of undecided voters,
in large part for the simple reason that people tend to click only on
higher-ranked items. This is truly scary: like subliminal stimuli, SEME is
a force you can’t see; but unlike subliminal stimuli, it has an enormous
impact – like Casper the ghost pushing y ou down a flight of stairs.

We published a detailed report
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi0IkGNwQN9Xn68pCtG0oPhPDvVMjJ6j0FxzuHKnGGeyx-2BGK1ugxHeJGCNp43NMJRqSggH7FRvPr1cHBfGuMakeI-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BsExfxf6KJqh6Aq7lsiX0f4rG5R3LMnfhcyVePXkJzpCxhK7RgRNPck4ovzN0IYj1XhTkcG32ImoyjU1LBYWxu0OKDBWQWU1NA4mOsZ5AwBBoa9xRVnifq2vYd8eLoVOb1fe-2BFrrQCgMco3A4B2zr5mXdDstFmxahC1yTp30pE16CwsB2t9GhtCpRrN6VkaOlOEjuXsLr2Ip5OE5bSSioYg-3D-3D>
about our first five experiments on SEME in the prestigious *Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences* (PNAS) in August 2015. We had indeed
found something important, especially given Google’s dominance over search.
Google has a near-monopoly on internet searches in the US, with 83 per cent
of Americans specifying Google as the search engine they use most often,
according to the Pew Research Center
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi-2BQIZmH3gO3HAzo7F1poJWmmqfuQDK7t28KHUCpvqG7nmGlug1i7OUNX4hPmaPDYrmX7dqznyJiHt-2BqK2bEZpWI-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BMB7Z63ZPPYedpy2I-2BwUOe0jdY5mo8Gy0U9s-2BUNHSBukXf3800MQNGso8WDbeArWWK9MdTvVQHti-2Fm-2BncceOCQir4L6Z4tFPGOsG6aPky6Lz82Oqxv9QytR8WqqqxFcX4NSSyLdNFFmrFMyjHFN-2FJb4aAPztLAhBmboZaVOBCVmZ9LAidX1-2BfkEZwtSMnbzIv4olmT2TB4koEAzhj90FQ7g-3D-3D>.
So if Google favours one candidate in an election, its impact on undecided
voters could easily decide the election’s outcome.

Keep in mind that we had had only one shot at our participants. What would
be the impact of favouring one candidate in searches people are conducting
over a period of weeks or months before an election? It would almost
certainly be much larger than what we were seeing in our experiments.

Other types of influence during an election campaign are balanced by
competing sources of influence – a wide variety of newspapers, radio shows
and television networks, for example – but Google, for all intents and
purposes, has no competition, and people trust its search results
implicitly, assuming that the company’s mysterious search algorithm is
entirely objective and unbiased. This high level of trust, combined with
the lack of competition, puts Google in a unique position to impact
elections. Even more disturbing, the search-ranking business is entirely
unregulated, so Google could favour any candidate it likes without
violating any laws. Some courts
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=WOYeatUIo2hTfNi0Z3tPZLu8IRa-2BbghXkfNvglTFPdz9mRqTxc1ZHgVa-2FGIT7VnCapbfI-2F2S8wXHrymils8fFwGdBCmlBPhc5M1hUqyq-2BeatBnB3BntC2H6VmoayPMiE_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2B-2BMjKT6FbPWnsJUPkC9PeilEr4RZQJzRW3SN1e6ivMq-2F6oEaezIRLQKoC-2BsosdUZzl3j0QJbbkkUrBAC8X8DukyD7xPBtK0GRSThX1b9inU8cZ56JI1vwISw2blFBL2g5KYfYjhvSBnuhvTlYAeWZr-2Bfq-2FQQ6opUt8pIJkutInaaL7QlEjZHGIySqqgsuH2iY8mfyS50oHaLfcOiod-2BWn2w-3D-3D>
have even ruled that Google’s right to rank-order search results as it
pleases is protected as a form of free speech.

Does the company ever favour particular candidates? In the 2012 US
presidential election, Google and its top executives donated more than
$800,000 to President Barack Obama and just $37,000 to his opponent, Mitt
Romney. And in 2015, a team of researchers from the University of Maryland
and elsewhere showed
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi4RVdxOiplljVuu5L1KoCfrqrz57MTgyIUoNxGJIaWH8BuPWViJmYpCGPRQaIvY41KA7wf-2B9LkJUPQXi3WqVnlJ83MvvpkLxiv8MWVOtwuMXptE8TbSQEIkOg7WAUrG2aohe2rKIHASYG9wCy0Owe48-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2B71mOil-2FKLPf0Uer0XaY7Epzp-2B8OU2oCB7NmhVi3P03sWXiXnt-2BuTc1-2BeYwayt6dYTc9aN5yD0jAMrzCJWuppreyUovT3JuxkvD6C1F6ltfXlsiJGkd0WOs4J-2BgD7CnW7i-2FlWG2k9Ik8Zz5bsn1Hd-2B5zWycIVx9gqfhr9GKrKnqzGH6G1PyLq7aaBAiUxyhIJtyikwegvGy6mNp5csMx-2BZQ-3D-3D>
that Google’s search results routinely favoured Democratic candidates. Are
Google’s search rankings really biased? An internal report
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi2xwzQDtKYvTkrncUd-2BWHN83rsQe9xmdI7sN8rSramEvuCuESL2-2BAP7QzqWZtM54x7a0R3Bsf7MdQZ7aOZIoVVI-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BX0qFF0JiNnwmTEvYAU0eULt6jzlGWNLmaHfRMJU0mrDdBRU6qEKTokf3Lz33kP8O33fDqqw6AR74zflLZ9Hx8RFtvYlWUrUzDQwDgnI3LkFczIA4qDCekmKd6F-2BW8iGOJhWW-2B5-2Bo0QwYYpez7qe61p2zfCqx7qfKNHhjUgMZbiemTC5ethLIxS8iWsxHUGRWkQfJoAUD9ehTlm4jQ7XBfg-3D-3D>
issued by the US Federal Trade Commission in 2012 concluded that Google’s
search rankings routinely put Google’s financial interests ahead of those
of their competitors, and anti-trust actions currently under way against
Google in both the European Union
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi2Nzem4Ri9yZltlJZcR4dZKtb7VB0AWqrQ4ZBt-2BgrPGDCH6WlqiuB3k1bydiUUjcJXCl5LNi8-2FYwVDO-2BDNFxgNERFU76iZxPgMVWLEJEe2lximv5oBnyNx-2FpOXLAeEckp3ciRjs3JpRB7qqvcw0GN1A-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BA2wVF27gV0VEDThp7rFcJPO9p6VdfydwsLyxvtzm2ycoFF-2FqIwHG-2Fb-2Bw-2FNEEbVJxJaeTltFIC58GIxD0CBldmESWSzyEDr3tJN7StpgPqyIR8BaZsfUL8vAgZ3UOnCxaY7z84u4YQVCOi43YRutTh9IVRUhpmROKbrWc07XPMWYHWDafI2LZFLwVo3JdVXw6Q-2Ff7tCn8OglaN2BqeNVWFg-3D-3D>
and India
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi-2FRW0pG4d6IacqC9hofFWFaZ0QutaWpaCpF4og52n2xM8yijZYr1ptVdlpcyWOmwy4AZDaiH4NRJD-2BgF17UGtDZkEffyBKbt-2FK9sGOY63lDIXCHnftxtBWa0J4TDI1HtKsWc8TCgyN0VmPaptnHm2CU-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BZ2oynJPISRNm0XYTnQA4OOxgMGIbEfhJQcjaYQlwxyZgD2ABZ1U7B2m3kE9ReMVdw8wBmQzDOd9WlJDFaC-2BQ77HFMAtTtAAl3R6Q0O9nvaJgTKNhGfk0XFZ0OtZ5MMxTa3P-2Fxkwws94TnuAeADIi7lqdAPsspceDXMXLrBVVk5GkkVcslwp90eU4BwwytJZ0k7MRhvDJeoIcPecLpQ6ckw-3D-3D>
are based on similar findings.

In most countries, 90 per cent of online search is conducted on Google,
which gives the company even more power to flip elections than it has in
the US and, with internet penetration increasing rapidly worldwide, this
power is growing. In our *PNAS* article, Robertson and I calculated that
Google now has the power to flip upwards of *25 per cent of the national
elections in the world* with no one knowing this is occurring. In fact, we
estimate that, with or without deliberate planning on the part of company
executives, Google’s search rankings have been impacting elections for
years, with growing impact each year. And because search rankings are
ephemeral, they leave no paper trail, which gives the company complete
deniability.

Power on this scale and with this level of invisibility is unprecedented in
human history. But it turns out that our discovery about SEME was just the
tip of a very large iceberg.

Recent reports
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi46BPqJ5b37BXb5brc-2BooQSpmpxv2n2-2BA96ceUyOEIcJFRmTzBBfkvl24pohyjdsMuMATS-2BrGInZCcVljppcg-2BxQVfflrgI3vvtA8Lhhi-2Ba4inE5K8gOSFXg-2FlUVx26DH0HmCTzskIUOebSn5yQDEh0-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2B8Nu2LsiG-2FRM1MSCiB3VYjTeWb-2BwT5L-2BX8bz8RU8aEfZslpf-2F8pfURV0N1O2RaqPTVFj1aHpUsnc9WE-2BkILbE1JpQVIc4T98ZyJIi7pgCfVxeKxmOnALfwmR4YY-2Bs9pggUITAmx2TSGFXMCxrwl-2BdsxkQrQGoZxqF25MYauNMcoItERlC2FN6-2BQVQP4mfpSWx2q239-2FGNle69sT7-2BIlf-2FMA-3D-3D>
suggest that the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is
making heavy use of social media to try to generate support – Twitter,
Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat and Facebook, for starters. At this writing,
she has 5.4 million followers on Twitter, and her staff is tweeting several
times an hour during waking hours. The Republican frontrunner, Donald
Trump, has 5.9 million Twitter followers and is tweeting just as frequently.

Is social media as big a threat to democracy as search rankings appear to
be? Not necessarily. When new technologies are used competitively, they
present no threat. Even through the platforms are new, they are generally
being used the same way as billboards and television commercials have been
used for decades: you put a billboard on one side of the street; I put one
on the other. I might have the money to erect more billboards than you, but
the process is still competitive.

What happens, though, if such technologies are misused by the companies
that own them? A study
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiyb8VogNHsA0pxsuKgVgcegVsPgOpLHtP7ZQ-2FLihhZVg1IZMtGj8itqIAlTXRoZDBVgu20e0vFCrP7BUR3wB70U-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BUBvZULAj5uer6S5gkl-2FrSV-2FRqWAVcShPgzuaZLZ3RifhnHpVov84vR15ZzQJbGc0q5RwK8O1v933y-2FFRgw-2BUBV7aknXxwNGrKobtyQJSsHWOrIu6UEPDqOU0gLfqzBDtt9KV4dFPr1VBi3QpyunSexhHDLWcP6thJfDXKt2JfVACwiKlpc1lqlrtf-2BlW3OudXtZEwwr-2BlxeQfX6ZvFXifQ-3D-3D>
by Robert M Bond, now a political science professor at Ohio State
University, and others published in *Nature* in 2012 described an ethically
questionable experiment in which, on election day in 2010, Facebook sent
‘go out and vote’ reminders to more than 60 million of its users. The
reminders caused about 340,000 people to vote who otherwise would not have.
Writing in the *New Republic
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=tSeUaD70fo3BTCHScrrdykYa0vFj46z9YsNXx3Vwo5WDkZo6hMB2Yvd5xoa92h6hfFYwu-2FiX-2FT0mlSca11OUbxDeRbO20o0lFSwpVvKlCZYP6KsS-2BndvGPpdXye5WkBPHLqpm-2B2bN6ZQy2N-2FFFkxUQ-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BOOfpmfzSL8A5Ea2-2BrfClmn4I2cCdu-2ByyIzYKRTalzEW7jybJ7ZUlDcsC8ARsrOc3Ue6FjIyaSJMb8Aa50KLqwo6nZ4v5oFktBRzFU3tfGE8eWgsHNf8MVDMZekLR0iYw3O6jXRwZWOn21iE-2BZrpJvL-2BjRqSfF90kieQgVikGrTTN2j7gd-2ByS7EIMXIrH5HDhrNAC8BV2BXAYMhgAz7EKQA-3D-3D>*
in 2014, Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law at Harvard
University, pointed out that, given the massive amount of information it
has collected about its users, Facebook could easily send such messages
only to people who supp ort one particular party or candidate, and that
doing so could easily flip a close election – *with no one knowing that
this has occurred*. And because advertisements, like search rankings, are
ephemeral, manipulating an election in this way would leave no paper trail.

Are there laws prohibiting Facebook from sending out ads selectively to
certain users? Absolutely not; in fact, targeted advertising is how
Facebook makes its money. Is Facebook currently manipulating elections in
this way? No one knows, but in my view it would be foolish and possibly
even improper for Facebook *not* to do so. Some candidates are better for a
company than others, and Facebook’s executives have a fiduciary
responsibility to the company’s stockholders to promote the company’s
interests.

The Bond study was largely ignored, but another Facebook experiment
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi0IkGNwQN9Xn68pCtG0oPhNcFiWPo7MUcoK2TURsfjY3tGllkjUm2ybGNTXg2c1kBQ-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BSj1o06DkCxR5cOQ5gbfsAcb-2FCrchUy8Nts-2BJC1S2eG1V2cqeJog32Yy3iH1B5FXVpEPZOkAV7-2FUrIQufyXtoaEFsqFPjE2wDjqttZrPRr0WuqLLXZRyzC9btZNc4IxPhYB6lLKuknHtdJCUmzvwrW0a7OcZgPjwgUa7UyzQIn0lW-2F5I-2FBLPQ-2BzsYD5ks3Bk-2FDnIAQK0p3lC6ouZGa-2BBozA-3D-3D>,
published in 2014 in *PNAS*, prompted protests around the world. In this
study, for a period of a week, 689,000 Facebook users were sent news feeds
that contained either an excess of positive terms, an excess of negative
terms, or neither. Those in the first group subsequently used slightly more
positive terms in their communications, while those in the second group
used slightly more negative terms in their communications. This was said to
show that people’s ‘emotional states’ could be deliberately manipulated on
a massive scale by a social media company, an idea that many people found
disturbing. People were also upset that a large-scale experiment on emotion
had been conducted without the explicit consent of any of the participants.

Facebook’s consumer profiles are undoubtedly massive, but they pale in
comparison with those maintained by Google, which is collecting information
about people 24/7, using more than 60 different observation platforms
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi0p8G-2Fv5S3ZwARBjnPKL816mIF6Ee47h7RCWudVv5OfX5ZoAvtHtVo2TegU8Bzl40vMNM-2Fc8BDUV-2Fk3IaVDRtf97hvYch9MZJ6Rp7YJKl0LZ_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BBMsXA8bHox97FgbuDETacbag31JI9xitwO-2BC5YF-2BpweoNJ-2F46xN0mh7FaFMjVbutyvQ-2BQJcIzqtpek5kk3KBP1BGNl-2B3t3UWVEM-2FChrE3w0f-2FLTiQ1vdRHfjT-2Bpq5QW19X-2BSWQuLEZYMjzIao7M2ZCsMvhJzp-2BkUenoOFREj3cRh1CsLNBcw3OVZt6dh9r7BJiJAVjIRto17nMt2fIKSFQ-3D-3D>
– the search engine, of course, but also Google Wallet, Google Maps, Google
Adwords, Google Analytics, Chrome, Google Docs, Android, YouTube, and on
and on. Gmail users are generally oblivious to the fact that Google stores
and analyses every email they write, even the drafts they never send – as
well as all the *incoming* email they receive from both Gmail and non-Gmail
users.

According to Google’s privacy policy
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=ikL5mCtc2uFKZrLa9RyLCdez99XbYuv0Xez1Sp28nuY1WRmp5fbKmQKUX7-2FJs5qV_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2B51mfNwKN7kxLDCvfA6X7akOmBmZgwh9NrTMOMU-2BETYNm9VEfmlwFz3HhMusCbTKBle-2Bt1PbLORef8I3VZ4u7n05Qj4uqzABO8uh2qsIvWp8KrvJyRSK1spFQ-2Ff-2B0JAVQDsWXu67qQbvmq3-2FbaUF14p9IZb6T3wrKKdmlsLIolUCsTAjnZjRmuP8-2BEmjCsKGH-2Fqq699mNcDYLARGJrcWMig-3D-3D>
– to which one assents whenever one uses a Google product, even when one
has not been informed that he or she is using a Google product – Google can
share the information it collects about you with almost anyone, including
government agencies. But never with *you*. Google’s privacy is sacrosanct;
yours is nonexistent.

Could Google and ‘those we work with’ (language from the privacy policy)
use the information they are amassing about you for nefarious purposes – to
manipulate or coerce, for example? Could inaccurate information in people’s
profiles (which people have no way to correct) limit their opportunities or
ruin their reputations?

Certainly, if Google set about to fix an election, it could first dip into
its massive database of personal information to identify just those voters
who are undecided. Then it could, day after day, send customised rankings
favouring one candidate to *just those people*. One advantage of this
approach is that it would make Google’s manipulation extremely difficult
for investigators to detect.

Extreme forms of monitoring, whether by the KGB in the Soviet Union, the
Stasi in East Germany, or Big Brother in *1984*, are essential elements of
all tyrannies, and technology is making both monitoring and the
consolidation of surveillance data easier than ever. By 2020, China will
have put in place the most ambitious government monitoring system ever
created – a single database called the Social Credit System
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOix-2FHwWM53KLvMXUTS5CMEAi5n4a1DQPSnHF5oL64AWyLOsC2RChUlDhJ0722B5n02uKbGS-2BLPCwyH-2FOb8x9G-2FMrcaMQ0OTMhfSMX4pW7-2BBA5_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2B6g-2FO0mzEvjqvwyaQHIFPjlDmdpoX-2BtJzdPHTOTKFcekduFeJK6PQWk2bJ0HZt840VcCqa221yfXQiZD2zSTD-2BnNY6CCKe8CzPfhBmRaOpxmgZNdkY5gk57B46vwXYGESFAAzigkIzghhOEmgA84eIo8hSGQOxv7NEIsEXGy4T8AFmB8UdcLw3wKIRe9B2c6p44mJE0s8c4pieRVEB3CXGw-3D-3D>,
in which multiple ratings and records for all of its 1.3 billion citizens
are recorded for easy access by officials and bureaucrats. At a glance,
they will know whether someone has plagiarised schoolwork, was tardy in
paying bills, urinated in public, or blogged inappropriately online.

As Edward Snowden’s revelations made clear, we are rapidly moving toward a
world in which both governments and corporations – sometimes working
together – are collecting massive amounts of data about every one of us
every day, with few or no laws in place that restrict how those data can be
used. When you combine the data collection with the desire to control or
manipulate, the possibilities are endless, but perhaps the most frightening
possibility is the one expressed in Boulding’s assertion that an ‘unseen
dictatorship’ was possible ‘using the forms of democratic government’.

Since Robertson and I submitted our initial report on SEME to *PNAS* early
in 2015, we have completed a sophisticated series of experiments that have
greatly enhanced our understanding of this phenomenon, and other
experiments will be completed in the coming months. We have a much better
sense now of why SEME is so powerful and how, to some extent, it can be
suppressed.

We have also learned something very disturbing – that search engines are
influencing far more than what people buy and whom they vote for. We now
have evidence suggesting that on virtually all issues where people are
initially undecided, search rankings are impacting almost every decision
that people make. They are having an impact on the opinions, beliefs,
attitudes and behaviours of internet users worldwide – entirely without
people’s knowledge that this is occurring. This is happening with or
without deliberate intervention by company officials; even so-called
‘organic’ search processes regularly generate search results that favour
one point of view, and that in turn has the potential to tip the opinions
of millions of people who are undecided on an issue. In one of our recent
experiments, biased search results shifted people’s opinions about the
value of fracking by 33.9 per cent.

Perhaps even more disturbing is that the handful of people who do show
awareness that they are viewing biased search rankings shift *even further*
in the predicted direction; simply knowing that a list is biased doesn’t
necessarily protect you from SEME’s power.

Remember what the search algorithm is doing: in response to your query, it
is *selecting* a handful of webpages from among the billions that are
available, and it is *ordering* those webpages using secret criteria.
Seconds later, the decision you make or the opinion you form – about the
best toothpaste to use, whether fracking is safe, where you should go on
your next vacation, who would make the best president, or whether global
warming is real – is determined by that short list you are shown, even
though you have no idea how the list was generated.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a consolidation of search engines has been
quietly taking place, so that more people are using the dominant search
engine even when they think they are not. Because Google is the best search
engine, and because crawling the rapidly expanding internet has become
prohibitively expensive, more and more search engines are drawing their
information from the leader rather than generating it themselves. The most
recent deal, revealed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=HuhHagux1YytFwCS1qmrLwMwuWKil9tG6Y1nwXeMJ7dnpF4FfawWqJoK1-2FRsLwMIlRHo0fHx3t3QBOP6RmwFYC5fr6qXoZSV7ZX5etHcnHYEnGbquold6gsLvt1PvZYo_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2B9XxSoZ91wDfBtmUYnXMO1IvIC7g4Ga-2Fq-2F6JYc3WA-2FhpT07NOxkRVfmj0cPiBrdM3Si6tT5T03Jdk4rwzNCmyAVXrhUgCSYYDyYT31DCxIdUXFHSK2yPs1Pz8eXigtGRG5iFzVfCs4dpcIaCvArWjWRrCVIfspSdamYO6WggPDgQTbUxK7cKYzDF1ZD1oiOnnbWsWHWrOHSZVzapH4mC0kQ-3D-3D>
in October 2015, was between Google and Yahoo! Inc.

Looking ahead to the November 2016 US presidential election, I see clear
signs that Google is backing Hillary Clinton. In April 2015, Clinton
hired Stephanie
Hannon
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=HuhHagux1YytFwCS1qmrL0fzJFXwda5Qo5dijMZmoeFJucyAdCw8RQpwGBNVvVmI4eGaLzDFMwevcMWueJK8xJ1YgdUXwuboniAooQ2V6tiP3Ph0r6gkZPAbx2TIHby7146JUENQjVACjae2ij11meeP82rEqjhZ0k-2BJAdPBxEUJizqOQ1zd6Rraq4TlEstH_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2Bi4YjeldlhZr-2F4hdrQQCW651CK61kR73hS219m6Xodf9OfaxqjnymOF28UAscxDBmJD8jfdjalJPUNdx5Vvhh6Sds0iAvvEs7LGVHD1TI-2BNr7bLhEj1OF05tL1hwB1qIPZqnW1uHe78xcxibg1fzfoFmUnJCAv86EHIMRFGatnVn5nSpFSObpQhRiX9fbeCEtfbD2J2FTv8mW9wwpaGi1wQ-3D-3D>
away from Google to be her chief technology officer and, a few months ago,
Eric Schmidt, chairman of the holding company that controls Google, set up
a semi-secret company
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=YHITX156cKgQ2PsNawtUrQJkvDWKYA5ZY5mOkuoTivNQZMIcAc3YnhRTc25gh-2FNkFNiqeJz10BombYjEMyIqXNmiKK4QjRyWdQkTCcIjLgh59y6L2fTX4mMw91cYEquC0j7ZHMVqbbRlGPSDx17pSw-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2B6VHiAQmlkEHXZOZlHoTIPELi7nM893cKvDSqqeXaa55t8C-2FBnPRSXMr1-2By7Kqn6b4OpQQ-2Bq4RTb4P-2Bw4hl-2FXP1EKH-2FLvQ-2FWkSSxPIQGc-2F8gb999y9ZdpI2n2q7sYTaaroBgwKqJ135EMqPRj-2Fg01SgaP-2B-2BYIw17Po23b668MXZG-2BwRJqXxXXkF4AsUqAkHv9BN13hO9FxuSarYseU89cdQ-3D-3D>
– The Groundwork – for the specific purpose of putting Clinton in office.
The formation of The Groundwork prompted Julian Assange, founder of
Wikileaks, to dub Google Clinton’s ‘secret weapon
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOixWg0n-2B1A-2Flqm0yKY7vptqTlw8mnjxXgZWlcZ9T5H5yT2hGoHBOH7VVNEqjOz8ldo8ycVY8swGAliDsyo43g3SGL33cBwE9Szfc7WLnX40MR3za-2B59podsfBMmn09aPA5g-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BCx3vY0hgeux0tlpefYBtIaQGsonyf-2BHQgyWW7Gcvu2A7kXlPbV7Yrmf1fH8AuAqFtIKT-2Fr1ZfZ-2BvjTk4YTdZsSWVTvecacyUs5DXNwe1awHs7SApx7vuIwFQg0b4pW9b1qe8LASQZMWgnPR6r9Ser-2FM2HJudszvBcVE2MEf6pmGjHie33CNrKO4f-2FxJz8mpdb55A6UWZrF6HH-2Bn-2B9HX-2BRg-3D-3D>’
in her quest for the US presidency.

We now estimate that Hannon’s old friends have the power to drive between
2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Clinton on election day with no one knowing
that this is occurring and without leaving a paper trail. They can also
help her win the nomination, of course, by influencing undecided voters
during the primaries. Swing voters have always been the key to winning
elections, and there has never been a more powerful, efficient or
inexpensive way to sway them than SEME.

We are living in a world in which a handful of high-tech companies,
sometimes working hand-in-hand with governments, are not only monitoring
much of our activity, but are also invisibly controlling more and more of
what we think, feel, do and say. The technology that now surrounds us is
not just a harmless toy; it has also made possible undetectable and
untraceable manipulations of entire populations – manipulations that have
no precedent in human history and that are currently well beyond the scope
of existing regulations and laws. The new hidden persuaders are bigger,
bolder and badder than anything Vance Packard ever envisioned. If we choose
to ignore this, we do so at our peril.

[image: Subscribe Now]
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HG4J7DmEVOBq602p9TRNesr_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BNM4SF2RM3TtEI7qqRPcKMU7Cr6tdwavA7bgTsK-2B5HZab5jeBCEyR-2BxC3yGxr-2Bl2TePNRDQm6YEzcfaVeMp08ycqbJ1zZyopnc0G6HwN93geNTM46nDH3bdA890gRzPy1paIpukb5-2FXc3GuSNM-2BnRd2Qt-2Bi7wzQkcbC6xPY-2Fe0zY-2FX1k8R7wqStzjhPwWrPfQpcLQClYVrJPrmy4jLlz5Lw-3D-3D>

*Share Your Thoughts on This Article*

[image: Post a Comment]
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HHzjVBM-2B1XyaezKWjuhTEMn-2FviY9xvOl3d6EWSev8UVzNXdAtg6XPV-2FX-2FPX8HPwN8Y-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BspuRP75AtwSlofETOg4g-2BtTsuIL3hkYPq9c5gg4tZY3Z-2BJKqYXU1JKr5Sb-2BGsNHGgDNAdHfV6kQl6zNITw1QJTRTCjkTSDyYXqrHOlULA8NSTbwcco1-2BJTJTwUEZCiXTZ8FRDPFSc8UjHupG-2Fz0tsgdh8d59mLNoJeEroe-2BCUK4GVY-2BWod7IewTNXFbKSB4FdDbjPmU99oHAym-2BMDj4tUQ-3D-3D>

Copyright 2016 Mauldin Economics. All Rights Reserved.
Send To A Friend
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HFCDDfxzHxIDABRAEiFw916IaXAJ1QzPbE6OZRDNN6gVw-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BuS450DV1xldTjYU86WrLSZa9TArAEyqks81XiLcnhf9qtPb9J9WuFwyASqjqjUORYDpOcwfI-2FgoCue3rf29zTBmvLt-2FV8f9zpTK0G956vHiyfsC3BGPTlrm3-2FTKOwzEvuIwjYEq8EpfnNuYnw9z-2BErJRBN-2BosljdXh23duX1DGU1RO7mHKN1XosB-2BggZ-2FXfAsQK1f37h1FGMmp5ODwbQDg-3D-3D>
| View as PDF
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=GoKyo837vf7SS31qySxLAlJcHCMrNby5-2BUqtSr75zakSe-2B8UDglx91JOdF-2FDbVOlNA42FGeGfhLHNYpmdgHI2wT689GrrW1sGJ-2BJMa4CZ-2Bzc50oRaYmhpjKJm0IR9Tji_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BVZEJzskZUITeB44CP9-2FpkvV4DzuS74l9wotbaKjg6UBVdsWddJI6rxo59cHgBxN2eCz29nmXXpOzxusDIWzR-2FJroyAy8eUSAZXpg-2BKIAFWMEmXRGeswvUhjRtijt6PLMstQH9WkRw7HsP61Dt2niK6CXyThv0qYj6FkXKzNh3YoZCZ1yhlOM8RI0Ja81-2FDaTlb5jDjfasnMF3RpBhjfMpw-3D-3D>
| View Past Articles
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HHzjVBM-2B1XyaezKWjuhTEMnRSEOkZDZAslyjYXIXxULgg-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2Bg04RlFLnZEt3eCL5WQNX6SWDp6JF8M-2FPPaLj1Br9Dz1hKs7KeFmPs5h-2Br-2FQt2OVR4Tq-2B4duB8DDGbzdpe2qoTpm7xgISym4X-2FBiLPAONrOA-2Fp3N54efWIB-2BY-2BoR5-2BIcO5HIce4PINwAy9jiHlIzn-2FxrFksy434QP4torFiQ2-2F98skCHGn8PqEXwqlZDFWwEu1yaWrW2b8YeKoU-2Br4zLX8Q-3D-3D>
| Permissions/Reprints
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HGu6-2FPiPZZYjK2r7haaagdM_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BHcQFVkKGS6RHL4Yd9LAdflhba0Nda5HOTrfVyjoSjbBxoMwYeoAd2uIQV3sTrdzK7PERwSJjc4bRtWYesjju-2BrJUHlImYeVw9zsZMLuEDiKjWPsbDsFKy3hR-2BT4gJSPbyYkoL-2FOGSsTADJ4AgY9NH-2BBphPCbv3xTngmqj2cnpoQZA4UR8C0-2FA7wQrovbl5EIC9BuEjZirkwY8Y4pfNc7SA-3D-3D>

*Outside the Box* is a free weekly economic e-letter by best-selling author
and renowned financial expert, John Mauldin. You can learn more and get
your free subscription by visiting http://www.mauldineconomics.com
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HF-2B0PgPBc3zY-2BgRwXvp-2FJzQ_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2B4uBqC96GdRV3II7zVUQsxMqXTr9ej7fwkCOgO6zhyRmmBz-2F4EnD-2FvJOQW78EUSxliS3vU-2BaP4ek7oQrWBTu9Lo08-2BwZYwqyuSRwWLnJH10IgnpCR2nX7d6kyZJlpvS5tgtaN1Zdo7bnIcOlTO0LGLkoaZYbYoyp99kx4xfrmiFCvl-2BOm-2B732G2pHOY3rZWQDTrVfBxAX6YRXnMEXMfoSBQ-3D-3D>
.

To subscribe to John Mauldin's e-letter, please click here:
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/subscribe
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HG4J7DmEVOBq602p9TRNesr_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2Bo-2B-2B9Un4C3Mcs459Pjhl2JRlTvAxFd75Gmp6UTH3BQvpCypHnpMMXdFLOy-2BMJ06Zle09Mu6tph6ZCkVd4GFSqd9OHa8l76rRgKw-2FcFmp2fxRWeBuJvpjE94pynavixCARJDfnyz7Nq0MEvAc959ZkXGj7pYxpACoNERmgR-2BlyJVVGOKBiX9LxXnIqortA35IiK3JSFbNMUJXaPTs8JbMqTA-3D-3D>

*Outside the Box* and MauldinEconomics.com is not an offering for any
investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and those that
he interviews. Any views expressed are provided for information purposes
only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or
inducement to invest and is not in any way a testimony of, or associated
with, Mauldin's other firms. John Mauldin is the Chairman of Mauldin
Economics, LLC. He also is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC
(MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states,
President and registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC,
(MWS) member FINRA
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOi6br7kr0VgQ2XQusiPQ53qc-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BaBcWP2F1-2BVrszWwPK5aLl5AatSYeBIZIWiiXV9pG6TkpjXe4BLh4jyV3T6c1QR2FeUIOA0X9UhoYGUJREZ77thqiwspgWntr2RbwTqryAsHks5D-2BbcWy-2BEJJ3nZV6FLcESREB22iRm8jkNXJ1oIW46koSA8OoTCirDm5fgcxwUi0Sgzum9MduMCPHwxcj3mDSbkNQqldk1Iz5fKgupySLQ-3D-3D>
and SIPC
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiyBxn9371nfM9kMZsAF-2Bz9k-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2Bse-2Fmr8G-2FlcQSIrEC8ZGjfKPWqHrSOp9uhirqPfzaFoDs476-2FmjNa9QlsBm5vUgSE30XxM2mSpT5C5LrvIsg2Jg7XhNiVwhhz2N5-2B9krf7O1UJxqhqtGeBqkU2PjAJ9M7Z-2BX6eUNS-2BaYxzxQg4G9kto9jxolBfrC8OgJetTO0oM2Iq9KiMjd-2FcTaiu-2FDSNi1SqISbXnPjJESZz5rVcD7jaw-3D-3D>,
through which securities may be offered. MWS is also a Commodity Trading
Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker
(IB) and NFA Member. Millennium W ave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and
MWS LLC. This message may contain information that is confidential or
privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above
and does not constitute an offer for or advice about any alternative
investment product. Such advice can only be made when accompanied by a
prospectus or similar offering document. Past performance is not indicative
of future performance. Please make sure to review important disclosures at
the end of each article. Mauldin companies may have a marketing
relationship with products and services mentioned in this letter for a fee.

Note: Joining the Mauldin Circle is not an offering for any investment. It
represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave
Investments. It is intended solely for investors who have registered with
Millennium Wave Investments and its partners at www.MauldinCircle.com or
directly related websites. The Mauldin Circle may send out material that is
provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Mauldin Circle are
not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment
counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal
investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave
Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with
multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium
Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also
a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an
Introducing Broker (IB). Mil lennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC
and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on
and marketing of private and non-private investment offerings with other
independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Capital Management Group;
Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Fynn Capital; Nicola Wealth Management; and
Plexus Asset Management. Investment offerings recommended by Mauldin may
pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3
of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein
are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in
any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA,
fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor's
services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine
thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since
these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market,
they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to
negotiate fee arrangements.

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS
WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN
CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD
CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE
IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE
THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX
TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE
NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN
CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT
TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER. Alternative
investment performance can be volatile. An investor could lose all or a
substantial amount of his or her investment. Often, alternative investment
fund and account managers have t otal trading authority over their funds or
accounts; the use of a single advisor applying generally similar trading
programs could mean lack of diversification and, consequently, higher risk.
There is often no secondary market for an investor's interest in
alternative investments, and none is expected to develop.

All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot
attest to its accuracy. Opinions expressed in these reports may change
without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs may or may not have
investments in any funds cited above as well as economic interest. John
Mauldin can be reached at 800-829-7273.

This email was sent to sanderico1 at gmail.com as part of your
subscription to *Outside
the Box*. Click here
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HEC0S5qsX5ujVNrS1CEPBtLILx5EUx-2FCQimx-2Bg0-2FIKBwA-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BNhguFLcFe4nCeDdX5WYcKCNNDF-2FtIuXqKJfO6ovI9-2Fn01SlwIS7WMCdotrkoe-2Bc1uLs-2BkOPBHRAjcqWDZNXCCnZrp77CVNEEqCvRXHtdomqcC9H3UXKiwWRt2AtaqfGJGPFWdSG584Bq7kfT77y46bU1VXm8dcWRLuoC5PHTxhL0ScbzNIcpoGKjospxpD1MGr14v-2FdFijWOXyA-2F103Ncw-3D-3D>
to change your delivery preferences or unsubscribe
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HEB6HIt6zobJPwbn6rfwT-2ByVHo3FKAYGCVZ1tpfPzT2dQ-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BXQyOzrLH-2FYRwvB93ZWgRdr6h1fojFMyE5uHNWV1Xx5-2Bcvzzd-2FQdyHZOchunSanuzk7nCq0diXVQKCn7KuJJsGGMvdJzfbkIr-2FurbYxVOHbFMJKAyeVZeqVze3lWXPx-2BO59pghcQZlTNfSRYHx94UgeLmQkHso2RYDtHcw2iPIaAaC5aE7DQOZc0f0lk4k-2BCSS12ASnX2XaxOVFtyccvAEA-3D-3D>.
Or send an email to subscribers at MauldinEconomics.com
<subscribers at mauldineconomics.com>

Mauldin Economics, LLC | PO Box 192495 | Dallas, Texas 75219

[image: Outside the Box]
<http://email.mauldineconomics.com/wf/click?upn=U8GusXYvzQrI-2BTfpBInOiw4cuS1SqQfCbK1N-2BAM97HHzjVBM-2B1XyaezKWjuhTEMnQkwfYnqMLERzsz79yVpSBA-3D-3D_xCVrW2ppMo115Cvu-2FEt8UdIfZN0FMP9MeCqAIfWrfTFIZB9gQGRUYeyTdhFBOoN-2BJcyQFywB4ypeTvVBXgIt8fWHlsK-2BKT0i7zTp0sdi22SGJltbqFikOLnPWCp-2BdsVOcD4zhLGNSifQ22n8W40QSHvlB-2BCuty69B82vtrc9vDsPShmsjgJsWMf3s2LPJcMdCvehfNdEwV7qCZknO7nZzUyp1GxULcU3e6YJ536QyhSryX4UknZ0GawnlZcQvx3Kzwj8H06JCRzLtdf-2Few0vJw-3D-3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.theswiftwatergazette.com/pipermail/swiftwatergazette/attachments/20160228/4e5c8913/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the SwiftwaterGazette mailing list