From: jimruttshow8596
Recent claims by former Google software engineer Zachary Vorhies, who worked at the company for eight years, suggest that Google has been acting improperly and potentially illegally concerning search results, blacklists, and other aspects of its information control. Vorhies has publicly posted a large repository of what he describes as Google internal documents to support his claims, likening his actions to those of Edward Snowden, although the host of the Jim Rut Show notes he has not researched Vorhies or reviewed the documents thoroughly [00:20:00].
Allegations of Information Manipulation and Control
Vorhies asserts that Google has been “meddling” in search results, YouTube queries, and even elections [00:01:57]. He claims this began around 2016, following the US presidential election, when Google executives reportedly “freaked out” and attributed the election outcome to external factors like Russian interference, racism, and hate [00:06:00]. This led to an apparent shift in Google’s internal strategy.
Search Results and Blacklists
Vorhies directly contradicts Google’s public statements to Congress, where representatives, including CEO Sundar Pichai and Kent Walker, allegedly denied employing blacklists or having a political ideology [00:25:29]. Vorhies claims to have disclosed blacklists and found internal documents showing their existence, such as the “YouTube query blacklist” [00:02:20].
He provides examples of alleged search manipulation:
- Searching “Trump body-count” auto-predicts results, while “Hillary body count” does not, despite Google Trends showing significant search interest for the latter [00:26:24]. Vorhies views this as evidence of political bias and calls it perjury when Google denies political ideology [00:28:18].
- This alleged manipulation is not isolated, affecting terms related to “conservative,” “liberal,” “men,” and “women,” consistently showing a political orientation [00:27:46].
The “Machine Learning Fairness” Project
A significant aspect of Vorhies’s claims revolves around Google’s internal project, “Machine Learning Fairness” (ML Fairness) [00:12:15]. He describes this as an “Orwellian term” [00:12:22].
- Purpose: The project’s alleged goal is to “fix” online content, including news, search results, and YouTube, by “revising” and “biasing” them [00:12:48].
- Algorithmic Unfairness: According to Vorhies, internal documents define algorithmic unfairness in a way that allows Google to intervene even if search results objectively reflect reality. For example, if a search for “CEOs” predominantly shows males, Google could classify this as “algorithmically unfair” and intervene via “product intervention” [00:13:31].
- User “Programming”: Most disturbingly, Vorhies claims internal documents suggest Google views users as being “programmed” by the content they interact with [00:14:27]. This implies an intention to “change the nature of reality to make a better person” by controlling the information landscape [00:14:10]. Vorhies asserts that Google intends to use its control mechanisms to “program” users, raising concerns about a future where escape from this influence is impossible due to Google’s ubiquitous presence across various services [00:15:15].
Instances of Alleged Interference
Vorhies cites several alleged instances of Google’s interference beyond search results:
- US Election: He claims Google has interfered in America’s elections [00:28:31].
- Irish Election: Google allegedly interfered in Ireland’s election by banning the phrase “eighth amendment to the constitution of Ireland” from its YouTube query blacklist [00:28:35].
- Brazilian Election: The Supreme Court of Brazil reportedly ruled that Google interfered in their election, citing a contract between Google and an opponent of the current president [00:28:48].
- Ad Account Suspension: Vorhies describes a “security vulnerability” known and exploited by insiders, which allows them to deactivate accounts. He links this to the suspension of Tulsi Gabbard’s ad account during the Democratic debates, which channeled search traffic to her opponents [00:39:10]. He had previously seen this method used to take down Jordan B. Peterson’s email account [00:39:58]. This involves creating numerous similar email accounts that push spam, causing the Google AI to deactivate the entire network, including the target’s original account [00:40:11].
- Translation Manipulation: Vorhies’s “breaking point” was witnessing Google allegedly deleting translation words from the Arabic-to-English dictionary to make a Trump tweet appear “crazy.” This manipulation, which involved deleting the word “kaf fa” (meaning “we will stand up”), was reportedly then used by the New York Times to attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the President [00:43:22]. Vorhies considers this “treasonous behavior” and a national security issue [00:45:46].
Concerns about Google’s Power and Structure
Vorhies expresses deep concern over Google’s immense power and its internal structure:
- Monopoly on Talent: He notes that while Google once had a “monopoly on the best and the brightest,” he now perceives a decline in management competence, with loyalty seemingly prioritized over skill [00:05:16].
- Stockholder Control: Google’s IPO structure includes different classes of stock, with Class B shares having 10 votes per share, giving insiders (who hold Class B shares) absolute control over the company despite owning a smaller proportion of the total stock [00:22:41]. This structure means stockholders cannot easily revolt against decisions they disagree with, even if Google is “abandoning their fiduciary responsibilities” [00:24:25].
- Ubiquitous Presence: Google’s extensive ecosystem, including the Chrome browser, Gmail, and Android phones, means it is “everywhere,” giving it “the scale necessary to be able to sculpt that information landscape” [00:15:38].
Vorhies suggests that the coordinated nature of these actions across Google and other social media companies, potentially driven by similar stockholders, points to a “conspiracy” or a coordinated “agenda” being pushed [00:20:25]. He believes this has contributed to a “consensual delusion” about various cultural and political topics being pushed through different channels simultaneously [00:21:31].
The Whistleblower’s Experience
Zachary Vorhies’ decision to come forward was influenced by witnessing alleged perjury by Google executives before Congress and the company’s perceived involvement in “treasonous behavior” [00:25:00].
- Google’s Reaction: Upon identifying Vorhies as the source of the leaks, Google initiated a “wellness check” on him. This involves reporting concerns to the police, giving them probable cause to investigate an individual’s well-being and potentially detain them [00:02:50]. Vorhies considers this a “bad faith” and “Orwellian” tactic, particularly as it was triggered by his use of a “Deadman switch” on Twitter to protect himself from assassination [00:04:23].
- Call to Action: Vorhies urges other Google employees with evidence of misdeeds to contact Project Veritas via a VPN and Tor browser to protect their identity and disclose information securely [00:46:51]. He emphasizes that exposing the truth is key to defeating perceived evil [00:32:34].
Broader Societal Implications
The potential for such vast control over information by a single entity like Google has significant long-term consequences of technology design and raises questions about economic and social implications of AI and the impact of AI on society. If Google actively “programs” users by shaping their information diet, it could fundamentally alter public discourse, individual beliefs, and democratic processes, leading to existential risks. The ongoing “media blackout” of these alleged leaks in mainstream media further exacerbates concerns about information control [00:31:42]. Vorhies views the current era, with its decentralized information networks, as a “new Gutenberg printing press,” allowing individuals to bypass traditional gatekeepers and disseminate their own “truth” [00:33:15].