From: jimruttshow8596
Zachary Voorhies, a former Google software engineer, left the company after eight years and has made significant public claims regarding Google’s alleged improper and illegal activities [00:20:20]. He asserts that Google has been meddling in search results, YouTube queries, and even elections [00:01:57]. To support his claims, Voorhies publicly released a large repository of what he describes as Google internal documents [00:00:37].
Motivation for Disclosure
Voorhies began collecting documents from Google because he believed the company was “lying to the American public” about its meddling [00:01:54]. He observed Google executives allegedly perjuring themselves in front of congressional testimony [00:02:08], specifically denying the use of blacklists, while he could internally verify their existence, such as the YouTube query blacklist [00:02:16]. His decision to disclose was driven by a desire to inform the American people about these perceived truths [00:02:42].
Google’s Response
After Google identified Voorhies as the leaker, they reportedly attempted to stop him by calling a “wellness check” on him [00:02:50]. Voorhies explains that a “wellness check” is a tip to the police, claiming someone is unwell or might do something, granting police probable cause to search for and question the individual [00:03:16]. He views this action by Google as “Orwellian” [00:03:57] and in “bad faith” [00:04:55]. Google allegedly used a “Deadman switch” that Voorhies posted on Twitter as justification for the wellness check [00:04:49].
The “Snowden of Google” Label
Voorhies acknowledges that the label “Snowden of Google,” used by others, is “somewhat accurate” regarding his collection and disclosure of internal documents [00:01:46].
Allegations of Egregious Behavior
Voorhies details a pattern of concerning behavior he observed at Google:
Post-2016 Election Reaction
After the 2016 US presidential election, Google executives reportedly “freaked out” [00:06:29]. During a weekly company meeting (TGIF), executives allegedly attributed Donald Trump’s election to Russian hacking and widespread racism, hate, and misogyny in the public [00:07:01]. One executive was noted to have cried on stage during this meeting [00:07:17].
Internal Documents and Manipulation
Around December 2016, Voorhies noted the appearance of unusual papers on Google’s internal networks [00:07:58]. One such paper, titled something akin to “psychological induced stress as a result of algorithmic discrimination,” discussed how to alleviate user stress [00:08:08]. A key finding in the paper suggested giving users “non-functional buttons and dials” to “pretend to turn some of the censorship off,” thereby restoring a “sense of control” and reducing stress [00:08:39]. The paper also discussed simulating “crowding” to increase product purchases via ads [00:09:01].
Defining “Fake News”
Google executives defined “fake news” as a reason for Trump’s election and sought to “protect the American public” from it [00:10:23]. Voorhies claims internal papers on “fake news” included examples of actual events being labeled as fake, such as the alleged Hillary Clinton weapon transfer to fund ISIS in Syria [00:10:41]. He cites the Uranium One deal, described by Peter Schweizer, as another example of information Google allegedly attempted to filter [00:11:38].
Machine Learning Fairness (ML Fairness)
Google reportedly implemented a project called Machine Learning Fairness (ML Fairness) to “fix” what they perceived as fake news, hate, and racism online [00:12:35]. This project allegedly revises search results and biases YouTube and news content based on “fairness” [00:12:48]. Voorhies states that a document defined “algorithmic unfairness” by imagining a search for CEOs returning mostly male results; even if this represented objective reality, Google classified it as “algorithmically unfair” and suggested “product intervention” [00:13:31].
Users as “Programmable Units”
Voorhies was disturbed by Google documents describing users as being “programmed based upon the content that they’re interacting with” [00:14:27]. He states the exact words used were that “people like us are programmed,” suggesting Google views users as “programmable units” which they intend to program using their control mechanisms [00:14:55]. He expresses concern about Google’s pervasive presence and its ability to “sculpt that information landscape” [00:15:49].
Google’s Control and Disinformation
Voorhies asserts that Google’s stated objective and neutral stance, as claimed by founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, is untrue [00:16:51]. He believes his disclosed evidence proves this, and points to Shoshanna Zuboff’s “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” as substantiating Google’s power to manipulate search and news results [00:19:27].
Accessibility of Evidence
Voorhies’s disclosed documents are available at ProjectVeritas.com/Google-dump [00:27:26]. He advises users to download the everything.zip file [00:27:36]. He also recommends checking the work of Robert Epstein, former chief editor of Psychology Today, who has investigated Google’s alleged election meddling [00:18:44].
Hypothesis on Motivation
Voorhies hypothesizes that Google’s agenda is driven by “establishment media players” and aligns with other social media companies due to similar top stockholders like Vanguard and BlackRock [00:20:05]. He suggests a coordinated agenda because “everyone is wrong about the same thing at the same time” regarding issues like the “Russian collusion conspiracy hoax” and the “culture war” [00:20:57].
Jim Rut counters that institutional holders are unlikely sources of ideological influence, being “strictly chasing yield” [00:22:04]. Voorhies then points out Google’s stock structure, which includes Class B shares with 10 votes per share, compared to Class A shares with one vote, giving insiders disproportionate control [00:22:41]. This structure, he argues, allows Google to abandon fiduciary responsibilities to stockholders without recourse [00:24:25].
Perjury and Search Manipulation Allegations
Voorhies claims Google executives, including Karen Buta and the CEO, have perjured themselves in Congress by denying the existence of blacklists and political ideology within the company [00:25:00]. He cites his own disclosure of a blacklist and Robert Epstein’s findings of nine others, totaling around 12 known blacklists [00:25:36].
As evidence of political bias in search, Voorhies highlights discrepancies in Google’s autocomplete suggestions [00:27:21]. For example, typing “Trump body-count” auto-predicts, despite the lack of a known list, whereas “Hillary body” does not suggest a “body count” despite a high search volume for “Hillary Clinton body count” on Google Trends [00:27:26]. He argues this manipulation always aligns with a political orientation [00:28:16].
Allegations of Election Interference
Voorhies asserts that Google has interfered not only in America’s election but also in other countries:
- Ireland: By banning the phrase “eighth amendment to the constitution of Ireland” from the YouTube query blacklist [00:28:34].
- Brazil: The Supreme Court of Brazil reportedly ruled that Google interfered in their election, citing a contract between Google and the opponent of the current president [00:28:51].
Voorhies supports his claims about the “Clinton body count” through his own investigation into suppressed information, noting that “no one’s reporting on this Google leak in the establishment media” [00:31:10]. He suggests a “conspiracy” where the media is preventing the story from reaching the public [00:31:20].
Bypassing Gatekeepers
Voorhies sees the rise of podcasts, blogs, and Twitter as a “new Gutenberg printing press” [00:33:04], enabling individuals to bypass traditional media gatekeepers and disseminate information directly to the public [00:33:36].
Specific Vulnerabilities and Exploits
Voorhies identified a specific security vulnerability within Google that he alleges was exploited by insiders [00:40:03]:
- Account Deactivation: He explains that a network of email accounts (e.g.,
xxx,xxy,xxz) created close to a target’s original email address (e.g.,xxx@gmail.com) can be used to push spam [00:40:11]. Google’s AI then deactivates the spam network and, “surprisingly,” also the original email address [00:40:50]. Voorhies observed this pattern with Jordan B. Peterson’s email account [00:41:12]. - Tulsi Gabbard’s Ad Account: He believes this same vulnerability was used to suspend Tulsi Gabbard’s ad account during the Democratic debates [00:39:19], causing her promoted websites to be replaced by her opponents’ [00:39:52]. He wrote an open letter to her attorney detailing how to discover this pattern within Google’s bug database [00:42:06].
Breaking Point
Voorhies states his “breaking point” and decision to become a whistleblower occurred when he witnessed Google allegedly deleting translation words from the Arabic to English dictionary [00:43:22]. This was done to make a Trump tweet “sound crazy,” which was then reportedly used by The New York Times to attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president [00:43:38]. The specific word was “kaf fa” (كففا), meaning “we will stand up” [00:44:17]. Google allegedly had to delete the word twice because its AI was smart enough to find a phonetic transliteration [00:45:10]. Voorhies viewed this as “treasonous behavior” and a “national security issue” [00:45:46].
Call to Action for Whistleblowers
Voorhies advises other Google employees with evidence of misdeeds to contact Project Veritas [00:47:06]. He specifically recommends using a VPN and a Tor browser for secure communication [00:48:32].