From: jimruttshow8596
Zachary Vorhies, a former software engineer at Google for eight years, has made provocative claims about Google’s alleged improper and illegal actions concerning search results, blacklists, and electoral processes [00:00:20]. He has publicly posted a large repository of what he describes as Google’s internal documents to support his claims [00:00:37].
The host of the Jim Rut Show notes that he has not researched Zach or reviewed his documents, nor does he have a strong opinion about Vorhies’ expertise and claims [00:00:51]. However, the host states that Vorhies’ claims about Google’s manipulation of the information sphere are “very disturbing if true” [00:01:07].
Allegations of Search and Content Manipulation
Vorhies claims that Google has been lying to the American public about its meddling in search results, YouTube queries, and elections [00:01:54]. He witnessed Google executives “perjuring themselves in front of congressional testimony” by denying the existence of blacklists, which he found internally by searching for “blacklist” on Google’s internal search page [00:02:08]. A popular result was the “YouTube query blacklist” [00:02:36].
Executive Statements vs. Internal Realities (Blacklists)
Zachary Vorhies asserts that Google executives, including CEO Sundar Pichai, have committed perjury by testifying under oath to Congress that Google does not employ blacklists or have a political ideology [00:24:51]. Vorhies claims to have disclosed blacklists in his documents, and Robert Epstein has also reportedly discovered nine prior blacklists, totaling around twelve publicly disclosed blacklists [00:25:36].
The “Machine Learning Fairness” Project
Vorhies describes a system Google was building called “machine learning fairness” (ML fairness) [00:12:15]. This project aims to revise and bias search results, YouTube results, and news aggregations [00:12:48]. It takes training data as input to generate rules applied to content, ranking it based on “fairness” [00:13:05].
A document related to ML fairness defined algorithmic unfairness by stating that if a search for CEOs predominantly returned male results, “even if this represented objective reality, we could still classify it as algorithmically unfair and that we should intervene via product intervention” [00:13:31]. Vorhies interprets this as Google’s attempt to “change the nature of reality to make a better person” [00:14:10]. The documents also suggest that users are “programmed based upon the content that they’re interacting with,” implying that Google intends to use its control mechanisms to “program” users [00:14:27]. This raises concerns about Google’s pervasive influence given its widespread presence in daily digital life [00:15:38].
Censorship of “Fake News” and Information Shaping
Following the 2016 US presidential election, Google executives allegedly “freaked out” [00:06:29]. They attributed Donald Trump’s election to Russian hacking, racism, hate, and misogyny [00:07:01]. Google then started defining and combating “fake news” [00:10:20]. Vorhies claims that examples of “fake news” used internally by Google included factual events, such as Hillary Clinton allegedly running “weapons soup in gauzy to fund Isis to arm Isis in Syria” [00:10:48]. He questions why Google would involve itself in such political matters [00:11:15].
Alleged Electoral Interference
US Elections
Vorhies alleges that Google is involved in election meddling. He provides an example related to search autocomplete suggestions: searching “Trump body-count” auto-predicts results, but searching “Hillary body” (with a “K” to start “count”) does not give suggestions, despite Google Trends showing significant search traffic for “Hillary Clinton body count” [00:26:24]. He argues this discrepancy indicates political bias in Google’s search algorithms [00:28:16].
International Elections (Ireland, Brazil)
Vorhies asserts that Google has interfered in elections outside the US, specifically mentioning Ireland and Brazil [00:28:33]. In Ireland, Google allegedly banned the phrase “eighth amendment to the constitution of Ireland” from its YouTube query blacklist [00:28:35]. In Brazil, the Supreme Court reportedly ruled that Google interfered in their election, citing a contract between Google and an opponent of the current president [00:28:51].
Manipulation of Political Figures’ Accounts
Vorhies describes a security vulnerability that he claims insiders at Google exploit to take down accounts [00:40:03]. He states that by creating multiple spam accounts with email addresses similar to a target’s, Google’s AI will deactivate the spam network, but also “surprisingly… delete the original email address” [00:40:50]. He alleges this technique was used to suspend Tulsi Gabbard’s ad account during the Democratic debates, leading to her opponents’ promoted websites appearing instead when people searched for her [00:39:10]. He had previously seen this pattern used against Jordan B. Peterson’s account [00:39:58].
Altering Translations for Political Impact
Vorhies’ “breaking point” was when he observed Google allegedly deleting translation words from the Arabic to English dictionary [00:43:22]. This was done to make a Donald Trump tweet sound “crazy,” a narrative then reportedly used by the New York Times to invoke the 25th Amendment for presidential removal [00:43:38]. The specific word in question was “kaf fa” (or “kaf FA”) which, in Arabic, means “we will stand up” [00:44:17]. He claims Google operators deleted this word, even after its AI attempted to transliterate it back, indicating a deliberate act [00:45:03]. Vorhies viewed this as “treasonous behavior” and a national security issue [00:45:46].
Corporate Structure and Motivations for Interference
Vorhies speculates that a shared agenda might be driven by the common major stockholders across social media companies, such as Vanguard and Blackrock [00:20:05]. However, the host points out that these are typically yield-chasing pooled capital funds unlikely to exert ideological influence [00:22:06].
Instead, the discussion turns to Google’s unique corporate structure. Google’s IPO created different classes of stock, with Class B shares having “preferential voting rights” (10 votes per share) compared to Class A (one vote) and Class C (no votes) [00:22:41]. This structure means “the Class B shareholders, i.e., the insiders, absolutely control the company” [00:24:07]. Vorhies argues that this structure, which gives executives disproportionate power, allows Google to abandon its fiduciary responsibilities to stockholders [00:24:25]. He characterizes the executives’ “flowery language” about high morals as a “cover for criminal activity” [00:24:42].
Calls for Transparency and Action
Vorhies released his documents to inform the American public [00:02:42]. He encourages people to download his archive from Project Veritas (projectveritas.com/google-dump), specifically the “everything.zip” file [00:17:26]. He suggests that others, such as think tanks and influencers, are in the process of dissecting and making sense of the information [00:18:35]. He specifically recommends the work of Robert Epstein, former chief editor of Psychology Today, who has made it his mission to prove Google’s election meddling [00:18:44].
He also suggests that individuals can test Google’s bias by comparing search autocomplete suggestions with actual search traffic data from Google Trends (trends.google.com) [00:37:41]. He notes that this is a unique situation where Google Trends “is still allowed to contradict Google” [00:37:31].
Vorhies expresses frustration over the mainstream media blackout regarding his Google leak [00:31:10]. He believes that exposing this information to the public is crucial for change, likening the current information landscape to a “new Gutenberg printing press” where “gatekeepers are being bypassed” [00:33:12].
Vorhies advises other potential whistleblowers at Google or other social media companies to contact Project Veritas via their website, preferably using a VPN and the Tor browser for security [00:46:51]. He vouches for James O’Keefe and Project Veritas’s integrity in protecting whistleblowers and handling sensitive information [00:47:10].