From: jimruttshow8596
Zachary Voorhies, a former Google software engineer, has made provocative claims about Google’s conduct, alleging the company has been acting improperly and even illegally with respect to search results, blacklists, and other aspects of information dissemination [00:00:27]. He has publicly posted a large repository of what he describes as Google internal documents to support his claims [00:00:37]. Voorhies characterizes himself as the “Snowden of Google” [00:01:39], stating he collected documents for several years because Google was allegedly lying to the American public about its meddling in search results, YouTube queries, and elections [00:01:49]. He claims Google executives perjured themselves in front of congressional testimony by denying the existence of blacklists, which he states he found by searching “blacklist” on internal search pages [00:02:07].
Allegations of Manipulating Information
Voorhies asserts that Google’s actions constitute manipulation of search results and blacklists [00:00:32]. He decided to disclose the documents to inform the public about what was “really happening” [00:02:42]. Following his disclosures, Google allegedly attempted to stop him by calling a “wellness check,” which escalated due to his refusal to speak with the police [00:02:47]. He describes a “wellness check” as a tip to the police that allows them probable cause to search for someone to ask evasive questions, potentially leading to detainment [00:03:16]. He believes Google used a “Deadman switch” he posted on Twitter as justification for the wellness check, which he views as “bad faith” [00:04:45].
The “Fake News” and “Machine Learning Fairness” Narratives
Voorhies dates the shift in Google’s behavior to after the 2016 US presidential election [00:06:00]. He recalls a weekly executive meeting (TGIF) where executives expressed alarm at Trump’s election, attributing it to Russian hacking, racism, hate, and misogyny in the public [00:06:50]. This meeting was partially disclosed in a video posted by Breitbart [00:07:28].
He then noted the appearance of internal papers on Google’s networks around December 2016, one titled “Psychological Induced Stress as a Result of Algorithmic Discrimination” [00:07:58]. This paper, he claims, suggested that users’ stress could be relieved by providing “non-functional buttons and dials” that would “pretend to turn some of the censorship off,” to restore a user’s sense of control [00:08:31]. Another part of the paper discussed simulating “crowding” to increase ad engagement [00:09:01].
Voorhies states Google began to “ramp up the crazy” by defining and combating “fake news” [00:10:12]. He alleges that in one internal document, events that actually took place, such as claims about Hillary Clinton’s involvement in weapons to ISIS, were listed as examples of “fake news” Google intended to censor [00:10:48]. He also discovered Google was building a system called “machine learning fairness” [00:12:15]. This system, he claims, revises search, YouTube, and news results by biasing them based on an internal definition of “fairness” [00:12:46]. He cites a document defining algorithmic unfairness: if a search for CEOs predominantly shows males, “even if this represented objective reality,” it could still be classified as “algorithmically unfair” and justify “product intervention” [00:13:31]. Voorhies interprets this as Google trying to distort reality [00:14:05].
Furthermore, internal documents allegedly describe users as being “programmed” by the content they interact with, implying that Google intends to use its control mechanisms to “program” people [00:14:27]. This view of users as “programmable units” is described as disturbing [00:15:13].
Specific Examples of Alleged Bias
Hillary Clinton “Body Count” Search
Voorhies claims that Google search autocomplete for “Trump body-count” will predict the full phrase, despite it being “ridiculous,” while “Hillary body” with the letter ‘K’ (for ‘count’) yields no suggestions [00:26:24]. He asserts that Google Trends data shows significantly more searches for “Hillary Clinton body count” than “Trump body count,” suggesting an ideological bias in the autocomplete feature [00:27:02].
Tulsi Gabbard’s Ad Account Suspension
Voorhies highlights the case of Tulsi Gabbard’s ad account being suspended for “suspicious activity” after she performed well in the Democratic debates [00:39:10]. This meant only her opponents’ promoted websites appeared in search results [00:39:48]. He explains this as a security vulnerability that a group of insiders allegedly exploit: creating multiple spam accounts with email addresses similar to a target’s, causing the Google AI to deactivate the original account along with the spam network [00:40:01]. He claims to have seen a bug report confirming this vulnerability, which he believes is used to “take down anyone that they want at any time” [00:41:12].
Arabic-to-English Translation Manipulation (“Kaff”)
Voorhies’s “breaking point” was discovering Google allegedly deleted translation words from the Arabic-to-English dictionary to make a Trump tweet sound “crazy” [00:43:30]. He cites a specific word, “Kaff F A” (which he says means “we will stand up” in Arabic) [00:44:17]. After the New York Times reported that “experts” called the word “nonsense,” a Google executive allegedly created a design document to replace the translation with an “easter egg,” but instead, the word was simply deleted [00:44:35]. This required deleting the word twice because Google’s AI was “smart enough” to find a phonetic transliteration path to the word [00:45:10]. He views this as “treasonous behavior” aimed at removing a sitting president, making it a national security issue [00:45:46].
Internal Culture and Oversight
Voorhies notes a decline in the quality of Google’s management, suggesting they are selected more for loyalty than competence [00:05:37]. He observed this “rot” setting in around 2016, right after Trump’s election [00:06:00].
He argues that Google’s corporate structure, with different classes of stock (Class B shares having 10 votes per share versus Class A with one vote) [00:23:42], ensures that insiders “absolutely control the company” [00:24:10]. This structure, he claims, allows Google to abandon its fiduciary responsibilities to stockholders, as the stockholders are “stuck” and cannot use their voting power to stop actions like “meddling in election theory” [00:24:25]. He believes Google’s “flowery language” about high moral standards is a “cover for criminal activity” [00:24:42].
Wider Implications and Information Dissemination
Voorhies’ central claim is that Google believes it is “programming its users by the content it delivers” and feels a “moral obligation or business obligation or some other obligation to program people to be better quote unquote in ways they Google believe is better” [00:16:19]. He asserts that Google’s previous claims of objectivity and neutrality are false, and he has evidence to prove it [00:17:00].
He suggests a coordinated agenda being pushed by “establishment media players” and potentially the same stockholders who own multiple social media companies [00:20:05]. He connects this to the Russian collusion narrative and the “culture war” around gender identity, perceiving these as a “consensual delusion” pushed through multiple channels simultaneously [00:21:06].
Voorhies highlights a “media blackout” on his Google leak in the establishment media, including Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, which he considers evidence of a “conspiracy” reaching into the media system [00:31:11]. He believes that exposing such alleged evil through truth will lead to change [00:32:34].
He notes that the “big platforms in the mainstream media no longer have an exclusive on dissemination of the truth” due to “collective information networks” like podcasters, bloggers, and tweeters [00:32:50]. He likens this era to a “new Gutenberg printing press” where information can be propagated and gatekeepers bypassed, allowing whistleblowers to deliver evidence directly to the public [00:33:15].
Voorhies encourages people to use trends.google.com to cross-reference with Google’s autocomplete suggestions to detect alleged bias [00:37:30]. He advises potential whistleblowers from Google or other social media companies to contact Project Veritas via a VPN and Tor browser to protect their identity and ensure discretion [00:46:51]. He asks people to examine his disclosed documents rather than simply taking his word for it, stating the documents provide “all the credibility” [00:49:13].