Google didn't elect Trump
But let's pretend that Google hasn't had enormous sway over the White House and hasn't been rubbing shoulders with Obama and other Democrats [1][2][3][4]. Let's also ignore the fact that much of Silicon Valley publicly supported Hillary and opposed Trump, with big outspoken critics including Microsoft, Faceboook, and Apple.
It's a shame to see indoctrination stretching to users of this site such that people here legitimately believe that a bunch of Russians locked away in some computer lab single-handedly elected the only man who challenged the prospect of perpetually living under the oligarchical thumb of the Bushes and the Clintons.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transf...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/google-polit...
[4] http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/09/google-higher-ups-love-don...
Closer to the topic: what Facebook enabled was far more effective targeting, by agents not authorized by the targets, on a massive scale. That's a lot different than the "bunch of Russians locked away in some computer lab single-handedly elected" rhetoric.
> I have to yet to see even a single fact to back up your claim.
Here's the first result from a Google search I just did: https://www.wired.com/story/russian-facebook-ads-targeted-us...
> If someone is going to spread disinformation and not present any facts, then I am going to post a sourced rebuttal.
I don't see any sourced rebuttal.
> instead of undermining the voters
I didn't undermine any voters. I made no claims about any voters. I commented only on the targeting, and that the targets hadn't consented to their data being accessed.
> blaming the results on some ludicrous notion of a bogeyman.
A calmer rhetoric would be more productive to discourse. Targeted advertising is not a "bogeyman". Stolen data and privacy concerns are not bogeymen. That people put up lots of private info that can be used to accurately profile them is a fact. That ads can be effective has been proven from the time ads were invented, and that targeted ads can be even more effective — especially in a political context — has also been studied and concluded lots of times. See [1] and [2].
Frankly, now that you've brought up backing of claims, I'm a bit discouraged to have to defend stuff like this against clearly biased political rhetoric.
1: http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019022...
2: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/a...
"How Facebook Helped Donald Trump Become President" -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2016/11/09/how-faceb...
"How Facebook ads helped elect Trump" -- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-facebook-ads-helped-elect-t...
"Here's How Facebook Actually Won Trump the Presidency" -- https://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-no...
There is no such perception about how google "won trump the presidency".
Which is why I think that "all the focus on Facebook", despite the fact "Google tracking is so much more widespread"