Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 2, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza

59:10

RE-PROGRAMMING Dinesh D'Souza Podcast Ep699

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We would like to thank our advertisers for our podcast.
	This podcast is brought to you by Dr.
	Kirk Elliott, PhD.
	If you're looking for wealth management solutions and financial advice, go to KirkElliottPhD.com and make an appointment today.
	Good afternoon and welcome to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
	I'm Brandon Gill. Filling in for Dinesh today, while he is on the road promoting police state and Police State has been explosive.
	You've probably seen it all over the news.
	And if you haven't watched the movie, you definitely should.
	It's streaming on Rumble, the free speech video platform where you can see it there, uncensored and away from the big tech oligarchs.
	So make sure you check it out.
	You've probably seen me before if you are a regular viewer or listener of the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
	Like I said, my name is Brandon Gill.
	I'm Dinesh's son-in-law.
	I'm the founder and editor-in-chief of an America First news outlet called DC Inquirer, which I highly encourage you to check out.
	That's dcinquirer.com.
	We're an America first news outlet.
	We're pro-Trump, unabashedly conservative, unlike many of the other outlets, and certainly unlike the mainstream media.
	So make sure you find us.
	You'll get stuff that you're not going to get anywhere else.
	We're pretty close followers of our great President Trump, and he likes to read us.
	He shares our articles on Truth Social.
	So make sure you find us.
	If he reads us, you should too.
	You can also find me on social media.
	I'm at RealBrandonGill on Twitter.
	I'm at BrandonGill on Facebook.
	And you can find me on Instagram and Truth Social as well.
	So make sure to check me out there.
	We'll be able to discuss a lot of things that we don't have time to get into here on the podcast today.
	Today we're going to be talking about free speech.
	It's something that the police state obviously has an interest in suppressing.
	Free and open dialogue, particularly dialogue that doesn't align with the ideology of the police state, is something that they can't let happen.
	They can't let it flow freely.
	So we're going to be talking about what it's like for me to be a publisher in an environment where We're censored on almost every social media platform from the internet companies, from emails.
	We're censored every single step of the way as we're trying to get you conservative news.
	And then later we've got on Google whistleblower Zach Voorhees.
	He's going to tell us about his time at Google.
	Some of the really deeply disturbing and insidious things they're doing there to control thought.
	And he's going to talk about what we can do to stop him.
	So we've got a lot going on.
	You're going to enjoy it.
	Thanks for being here. This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
	America needs this voice.
	The times are crazy and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
	We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
	This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
	Mike Lindell just keeps on introducing great deals.
	He's featuring the all-new My Towels.
	Save 50% on the six-piece towel set.
	The regular price is $59.96, but now for a limited time, it's only $29.98 if you use promo code Dinesh.
	Dinesh and Debbie have Mike's My Towels all over their house, and they love them for themselves, but we also love to get them as Christmas presents.
	My Towel's six-piece set includes two bath towels, two hand towels, and two washcloths.
	And I have to say these towels are amazing.
	The long staple length of Sherpa cotton fibers makes them very soft because of the long fibers.
	They can wrap around each other more easily, creating a smoother and softer fabric.
	Soft to the touch without the lotion feel and super absorbent.
	So take advantage of the 50% off on the six-piece towel set.
	Call 1-800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
	Again, that's 1-800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
	And don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
	That's D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
	Welcome back to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
	I'm Brandon Gill, filling in for Dinesh today.
	While he's on the road promoting Police State, a movie that if you haven't seen, you definitely should.
	It's streaming on Rumble right now.
	It has previously been in theaters, and we had a very successful virtual premiere.
	So make sure you check it out on rumble.com if you haven't watched it already.
	And speaking of Rumble...
	One of the things that I want to talk about today is free speech.
	Rumble is the video alternative to YouTube.
	It's a platform where you can say virtually anything you want without being worried about some big tech oligarch trying to kick you off the platform and censor you for uncouth political speech.
	Sadly, that's rare in America today.
	If you're on social media, you know that you can't speak your mind freely on Facebook or Instagram.
	You definitely can't speak your mind freely on YouTube.
	If you search on Google, you're probably not going to get the conservative results that you may be looking for.
	As you know, I've talked a lot about being a publisher of an outlet called DC Inquirer.
	We're unabashedly conservative.
	We're America first. We're pro-Trump.
	All things that the big tech platforms and oligarchs don't like.
	And I wanted to tell you a little bit about how that came about, what we do, and how...
	How aggressively we get hit by censorship.
	Because I think sometimes people think of censorship and they think of it as something that only happens on social media and don't realize how ubiquitous it is.
	I mean, we are literally hit from every single angle.
	So I started DC Inquirer in early, what was it, early 2022.
	So about a year and a half ago, almost two years ago.
	And like I said, we are conservative.
	We're pro-Trump.
	And I started it with the idea that censorship was heating up, but we still had these social media platforms where we could distribute conservative content on it.
	And the idea was, I'm going to figure out how can we break through the censorship and get a conservative message to the American public.
	Whether you like it or not, Facebook, for example, let's just use that as an example, and it's only one of the big social media platforms, you can reach so many people.
	I mean, there are millions and millions and millions of Americans who are on Facebook every day, and that's where they get their news a lot of times, for better or for worse.
	So it's really important that conservatives have a presence there and that we're able to kind of get around the censorship.
	So that's what I wanted to do whenever I started DC Inquirer.
	That was the goal, is how do we sort of formulate this in a way that we can break through that?
	And the way I would conceptualize it is, it's kind of like if you're a pastor...
	If you're a pastor in communist China, you don't go to the middle of Tiananmen Square and shout, Jesus is king.
	That's not how you're going to spread the gospel there.
	You're going to get shut down really quickly, obviously, if you do.
	You do it much more subtly, and you have to be a bit more clever about how you go about spreading the gospel there.
	You can still have a church, but maybe it's not...
	Maybe it's a house church.
	Maybe it's something a bit more underground.
	And being a conservative on social media today is kind of the same way.
	You don't go on to social media shouting things that you might want to say about social issues because you're going to get kicked off or you're going to get suppressed.
	And at that point, your options are either, do I get completely kicked off and not be able to share a conservative message to millions of people who are looking for it?
	Or do I figure out a way around it?
	So like I said, that's what we tried to do.
	And we got really good at it.
	Within the first, I think, 20, 21 days, there was a liberal outlet that wrote an article about us, a big hit piece.
	Within 21 days, I think, we were getting more Facebook distribution than the Washington Post.
	So we were quite good at sort of, I shouldn't say manipulating, but using the algorithm to amplify our message.
	And it's gotten much more difficult since then.
	But it's not just Facebook and Twitter and Instagram where censorship happens.
	That's where we see it the most because that's where whenever you're typing a comment on somebody's article that they share, somebody's post, that's where you see that you get some kind of feedback from Facebook.
	You get kicked off.
	You hear people talking about getting in Facebook jail and things like that.
	That's a really important piece of censorship.
	What I realized after starting DC Inquirer was that was only one piece in a much broader, much larger censorship organ that the left has.
	It's not social media.
	It's not just social media.
	What social media does is they say, They get you for things like hate speech, which is basically having views that Christians have had for 2000 years about gender or sexuality.
	That's for having an anti-BLM view, things like that.
	We're pretty well aware of that.
	But they'll also get you for fact-checking.
	They've kind of outsourced their fact-checking to these, what are ostensibly supposed to be independent organizations who will tell you whether you're telling the truth or not.
	All of that, of course, is utter nonsense.
	I mean, we could talk all day about how utterly BS these fact-checks are.
	We all know that. But what happens is, if you do things that sort of violate their rules, it's not just the thing that you say immediately that they sort of get you for.
	It's they kick you off the platform.
	Or if you have a page on Facebook, for example, they'll just take your page down.
	Or they'll cut your distribution in half.
	So what it means is you have to sort of work around that.
	But what I realized is, even if you're able to work around that, there are other ways that they get you.
	So I'll give you a couple examples.
	Let's say you have a great website and you don't need social media for distribution anymore.
	People go organically to your site or they find you on Google.
	What happens is there's an organization called NewsGuard, which rates URLs to your domain.
	For us, it's DC Inquirer.
	They'll give you a numerical rating on a scale of 0 to 100 based on a certain set of criteria that they lay out.
	And this is criteria that is absolutely designed to be opaque and designed to be to punish conservatives. So they'll say things like, you don't differentiate between fact and opinion, which is an entirely an opinion that they can make. I mean, there is no objective standard for measuring whether you can differentiate or whether you do differentiate between fact and opinion. But that is one of the standards that they use to give you an objective numerical
	rating on your site.
	Another one of them, which is kind of funny, is they'll say that you don't correct errors whenever you get—you don't have a corrections policy and you don't correct errors in your articles.
	And they flagged DC Inquirer for that.
	And I emailed and I kind of went back and forth with these people and I said, well, we do correct errors whenever we see them or whenever we're told that there's an error in one of our articles.
	We genuinely strive to be factually accurate in everything that we do.
	And we have a corrections page on our website.
	You can email corrections.
	I think it's corrections at dcinquirer.com if you see any errors.
	We just simply haven't gotten anybody telling us that we've said anything wrong.
	We're pretty strict about what we write and making sure that we're factually accurate.
	And their response was, we don't care that you've never gotten any kind of factual error.
	You've never been made known of a factual error in DC Inquirer.
	The fact that we haven't seen any corrections on your website is enough for us to ding you for that.
	I thought, okay, well, I guess the only way of getting around that is we need to purposefully put out non-factual information and then correct it later.
	So that's kind of... But what we've kind of moved towards, which is sad.
	And then there's some other things they do about, are you responsible in the way that you show the news on your website?
	And it's entirely, there's no objective criteria for what's responsible and what isn't.
	Obviously this is designed to suppress conservative news sites.
	There have been several studies that have seen that conservatives get systematically ranked lower in this numerical ranking than liberal sites do.
	Just the NewsGuard rating, like I could care less what kind of NewsGuard rating I get, except for the fact that NewsGuard gives you this rating, which then social media algorithms and Google use to rank where your content or content from your domain show up in either news feeds or in Google search results.
	And it's used in all kinds of places as well, but those are the two biggest, the two ones that are the most important.
	So you're getting it from Facebook, you're getting it from NewsGuard, where they're systematically giving conservatives lower ratings than liberals, which then feeds into where your articles rank in a Google search engine, which means effectively they're burying your news just by giving you this bogus ranking.
	Then you think, okay, well, I can't reach people from social media.
	I'm getting deranked on Google.
	What if I come up with another way of reaching people?
	Maybe I'll email people.
	I can build up an email list.
	As people come to my site, they can give me their email.
	They can say, I want to get news updates from DC Inquirer to send them to my inbox every day.
	They opt into this.
	100% legitimate.
	But what happens is you build up this big list and you want to start sending news up, maybe a morning update or whatever.
	And then you find out that ISPs, companies like Microsoft or Google again, or any of the other email systems, then flag my domain, DC Inquirer, as being spammed.
	Now, what criteria they use for determining that DC Inquirer's spam is about as opaque as it gets.
	On the surface, you think, well, that's fine.
	They're flagging things for spam because we get all kinds of junk in our email, and we want these systems to do that for us.
	But then you realize that they're doing this intentionally to conservative websites and To make sure that our content doesn't reach somebody's inbox.
	Because how many people actually check their spam folder?
	Very few. And if you continually send to people and get flagged as spam, then eventually that's going to feed into their algorithms and you're not going to be able to send anything to anybody at all.
	So my point in bringing all of this up is just to say that the censorship regime is so much more convoluted and complex than just social media companies censoring conservatives.
	It really is every single step of the way if you're a conservative news outlet.
	And it's kind of to the point now where I think that If I were, or if you were to start a conservative news outlet, and you don't have a name, you don't have name recognition, or you don't already have a large platform, I'm not really sure how you could actually do it.
	You can't really build up any kind of social media presence anymore as a conservative.
	And if you can, it's extremely, just unbelievably difficult to You have a really hard time running these domains, dealing with companies like NewsGuard, and then you have a really hard time building up email lists if you're going to try to get around that.
	It's virtually impossible now.
	There are sort of established conservative news outlets that you can get conservative news from, but it's very difficult to start a new one, which is a really terrifying thing to think about.
	One of the things that I realized whenever I was talking to one of our web guys recently, I told him, you know, I have never operated DC Inquirer in an environment where I don't have to think about censorship.
	And it's gotten to the point where this is now normal to me.
	I'm obviously conservative.
	I'm as free speech as you can get.
	But The idea that I can be conservative online without getting some kind of either economic or just deep repercussions is foreign to me.
	I can't imagine it.
	And he's older and he said, wow, it's sad, it's terrifying that this is now normal.
	And for somebody like me who's a bit younger, that I can't imagine a world where this isn't the case.
	It made me think about what a lot of younger people feel like in America now.
	Let's say you're a teenager now and you've grown up in an environment where you go to school and your teachers won't let you say conservative things.
	You're bullied at school if you're conservative.
	And then you go home, you turn on the TV, everything is liberal, and you go on social media where all you hear are liberal views and you're told that conservatives are racist or bigoted and don't deserve to be able to be in the public square or have a public voice.
	It's really hard to imagine how free speech can thrive in an environment like that because for a lot of young people, and I say this again because I kind of feel the same way, like that's normal now.
	It's abnormal to think of being in an environment where I can be conservative openly and without fearing some kind of repercussion.
	And that is ultimately a result of the police state.
	We can talk about how these are private companies, and we'll get into that more later with Zach.
	We know that's not the case, of course.
	The federal government was, for example, directing Twitter reports.
	I'm saying here are specific posts that you guys should look at and take down.
	We know that the idea that these are private companies is nonsense.
	These are virtually arms of the government.
	But that's kind of the point.
	A lot of the censorship apparatus works sort of on its own.
	It's that cultural shift where we begin to get used to censorship.
	We begin to sort of get accustomed to not being able to speak freely without having some kind of economic or social or political repercussion.
	Which causes us to normalize not speaking our minds freely, not having free speech.
	We can't imagine. It's hard to conceptualize free speech whenever you've just been so accustomed to having to censor yourself.
	And I think that's the most dangerous part about all of this.
	Inesh and Debbie are on a great health journey, but they still struggle to eat enough fruits, vegetables, and fiber.
	Lucky for them, they discovered Balance of Nature, and what better way to get all your fruits and vegetables plus fiber than with Balance of Nature?
	Balance of Nature fruits and vegetables are made from fresh, whole produce.
	Their produce is powdered after an advanced vacuum-cold process which stabilizes the maximum nutrient content.
	And their Balance of Nature fiber and spice is a proprietary blend of fiber and 12 spices for overall and digestive health.
	So like Dinesh and Debbie have, start your journey to better health right now.
	Call 1-800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com to get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code America.
	Again, that's balanceofnature.com or call 1-800-246-8751.
	8751 and get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code AMERICA. Dinesh and Debbie started taking Relief Factor two years ago and the difference they've seen in their joints the past two years has been nothing short of amazing.
	Aches and pains are gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
	Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation that's the source of aches and pains.
	More than 1 million people have tried Relief Factor and about 70% have gone on to order more.
	Debbie's been able to do all the exercises that for several years she wasn't able to do.
	It's been a game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, and for many other people.
	You too can benefit.
	Try it for yourself by ordering the three-week quick start for the discounted price of only $19.95.
	Go to relieffactor.com or call 8004-RELIEF to find out more about this offer.
	That's relieffactor.com or call 8004-RELIEF. Feel the difference.
	Welcome back to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
	I'm Brandon Gill filling in for Dinesh while he is out talking about Police State.
	Again, a movie that's streaming on Rumble right now.
	You should definitely check it out whenever you have a chance if you haven't seen it yet.
	And make sure all your friends and family see it as well.
	It's probably the most important documentary that's going to come out this year or that may come out next year or for the next several years.
	So very important to get as many people as possible to watch it.
	One of the things that we've been talking about with the police state is their ability to censor us.
	And they do it from so many different angles, as we talked about.
	And our next guest understands this probably better than anybody else.
	Zach Voorhees is a former senior coder at Google.
	He understands the censorship labyrinth in a much more nuanced way than Like I said, probably anybody else who's talking about this.
	He's the author of a book called Google Leaks, which I encourage you guys to get.
	Zach, thanks for joining us.
	Brandon, it's good to be on your program.
	Thank you for having me on. The company had changed, sort of did a 180 while you were there.
	Tell us what Google was like sort of prior to Trump, prior to censorship.
	What was the company culture?
	What was your experience there?
	Google was a dream for an engineer such as myself, right?
	Like an aspiring engineer that wanted to have a lot of impact into this planet.
	And I got this job at Google after a really quick interview, which I nailed, mostly because one of my majors is in mathematics.
	And so either I got lucky or I'm just really good at interviewing, but I was able to get in with just basically one on-site interview where others, it was taking them months to get in.
	It was like a dream come true.
	I got promoted twice because of my dedication to the job, specifically Google Earth, which is my first product I was working on for five and a half years.
	I really believed everything...
	I was a true believer in the Google culture of being Googly, of organizing the world's information and making it universally accessible, which was one of their constitutional-like statements that they made when they went IPO. I can actually remember an argument that I got into with a girlfriend of mine who had immigrated in from Russia, and she was telling me that Google was going to be Turning very bad eventually.
	And I was like, no, you don't understand.
	They actually represent what can go right with a corporation.
	I can't believe I freaking even uttered those words in 2011.
	And then it turns out that five years later, she would be right and I would be wrong.
	It turned out to be...
	It went to the dark side, essentially.
	And it didn't happen that slowly.
	There was the groundwork for it, the implicit bias...
	Testing that they had the employees do to measure how racist they were.
	But I was like, oh, that's some funny leftism stuff.
	And kind of put it away in my mind.
	And then this election happened in 2016 with Donald Trump.
	And the entire media apparatus just sort of joined forces on both the left and the right.
	He says, we've got to stop this guy.
	And I'm like, what's going on here?
	And I thought that it was...
	This is like, wow, the media is finally exposing themselves as a propaganda arm of the deep state.
	And for some reason, I felt that at Google, I was the minority of this opinion.
	To my utter shock, everyone else seemed to have bought an in.
	that, oh, Trump's going to destroy the United States and bring in fascism, and it's as bad as Hitler.
	And I was just like, what are you guys talking about?
	We even had some arguments about it at work with these people that were completely bought in.
	So yeah, so Donald Trump got elected.
	And I remember waking up the next day and just laughing to myself.
	I was like, man, that's the first time in my experience that the left has ever been handed a defeat and gotten exactly what they didn't want to happen.
	And so I just went to work, sort of chuckling to myself about what had just gone down.
	And to my utter shock and horror, the entire company was having a meltdown.
	People literally had to take the day off because of Donald Trump's election.
	And about a week after this election happened, Google had this sit-down TGIF meeting with the C-level executives in which they...
	Explain the election, what it meant and how they were going to try to put the lid back on this wave of populism.
	And one of the interesting parts about this was during the Q&A session of this TGIF meeting, where this employee came up and said, what were one of the things that we did that was very successful at Google for this election?
	And it was Sundar Pichai that took the question and answered it by saying, it was the use of our machine learning algorithms that was suppressing fake information.
	I went, whoa, wait a minute.
	This goes against the entire thesis of the company, which is to organize the world's information, make it universally accessible.
	Since when have we been using artificial intelligence to censor the news?
	And so I started to dig in because the company at Google… We can thank this former CEO, Eric Schmidt, for making it that way.
	It was his thesis that full transparency would give a productivity boost to Google so any engineer could look at what any other engineer was doing, see the code they were submitting, see their objective and key results for the quarter, etc.
	This extended to finding out what the internal research teams at Google were up to.
	I simply just started looking for information about censorship within the company.
	I actually expected to find a lead on this Project Dragonfly because that's what the media was talking about.
	Oh, this Project Dragonfly, they're using it to censor the internet in China.
	But according to my own research, it was a fake tweet.
	There was no Project Dragonfly at Google.
	It was essentially a ghost, no team, no OKRs.
	They're going to find anything about it.
	But through the search for that Project Dragonfly, I found the real censorship engine.
	And the real censorship engine wasn't named some scary insect.
	It had the most benign name you could possibly imagine.
	It's like something that only a Marxist could come up with, which was that their censorship engine was called Get ready for this.
	Machine learning fairness.
	Of course. Of course.
	What a great name for something that is going to lock down the entire information landscape and plunge us into an information dark ages.
	And this was in 2016, also, you're saying.
	I mean, this was long before censorship was part of public discussion.
	I mean, even as late as 2020, censorship was still considered a conspiracy theory.
	This is four years before that that you're seeing Right.
	And I'm like, well, where did this come from?
	Did Google invent machine learning fairness?
	And then I looked deeper. I was like, oh, no, it came from Stanford.
	In 2014, they were talking about this.
	And then they moved it into Google, and they incubated it.
	And then at the right time, you know, when Trump was elected, they're like, we have to start censoring the internet with machine learning algorithms.
	The thing that really set the start of this entire thing was Pizzagate, believe it or not.
	Okay, so this was the theory that there is a child trafficking organization being run out of a pizza shop in Washington, DC.
	Which is laughable until you start seeing some really weird stuff.
	It either had a grain of truth or it was an elaborate psyop to induce this change within Google.
	WikiLeaks posted these internal emails from John Podesta with extremely weird, out-of-context language.
	It was definitely being coded.
	Then people were putting the pieces together and saying, are they eating children?
	Which I don't think John Podesta was eating children, but there's definitely that information being pushed by someone out there.
	The reaction to that was Google saying, okay, we've got to start locking everything down.
	They start talking about algorithmic unfairness.
	And how do they restore equity?
	And what's really interesting is that all the language used to talk about this censorship was being done through Marxist lenses.
	Why wasn't this story the one that they locked onto?
	I mean, there was a lot going on in 2016, all kinds of theories and fake news going around.
	Why this one in particular?
	I think that it was just really big and it was just so out there that the left just can't wrap their head around this narrative that the elites might be into some sick stuff.
	You can't see it now because the Google Trends graph has moved so far.
	You can't see the actual day anymore for 2016, but there still might be a graph that I posted on Twitter in which I showed That fake news happened within eight hours of Pizzagate.
	You saw Pizzagate trend up like this.
	It went huge. It went totally viral within the entire...
	People don't realize how big of a story Pizzagate was.
	It was huge.
	You could see it in the Google Trends.
	Eight hours later, all of a sudden, the media adopted this narrative of fake news.
	It wasn't a term that was even injected...
	of the electorate until eight hours after the Pizzagate information got disclosed.
	Then all of a sudden you saw it surge.
	And so it was like, okay, Pizzagate, okay, fake news.
	Okay, now we're gonna just keep this fake news narrative going.
	And so now we need to have something that's going to combat this fake news.
	Problem, reaction, solution, problem, reaction, solution.
	That's Hegelian dialectic all the way until now we've got this state of censorship which is onerous and everywhere.
	So it was Google was sort of a mainstream company looking ostensibly to do good in the world.
	And then Trump gets elected and we have this Pizzagate story.
	And it sounds like we kind of did a 180 pretty quickly there.
	That's correct, yeah.
	Got it, so how does this work?
	I mean, for somebody who's watching, and for myself, I'm not a tech person.
	I type something in on Google, and presumably I'm getting what is the most relevant search results.
	I think that's what Google...
	How does Google manipulate this?
	What criteria do they use?
	Help us dive in to understand the mechanics of this.
	Every year, Google has released a guide for people that are in SEO, which stands for Search Engine Optimization, which is basically how to get ranked at the top of the pages.
	It was very simple.
	Your relevance was scored on how many other people linked to your content.
	If you have a thing and everyone's talking about it, then you get a high relevance score and you get pushed to the top.
	This worked for a very long time.
	Recently, what they've been doing is they've been revising their search engine optimization guidelines and saying how they rank the stuff on Google.
	It's been incrementally going towards the arc of totalitarianism, which is...
	You get ranked high if other authoritative sources endorse you.
	And it's called an EAT score, which stands for expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness.
	And so what they do to generate an EAT score for a website is that they, well, they used to have a human rater.
	Now it's AI. But the human raters would go through And they would type in a search for your website using a negative keyword of the website itself.
	So your website wouldn't pop up, but everyone else was popping up.
	And then what they would do is they would say, well, what are authoritative sources saying about this website person or topic, right?
	So, for example, let's say Dinesh, right?
	If you go to Google and you're like, you know, Dinesh D'Souza, but then you exclude his own website and then you see what the search results.
	Well, guess what's going to pop up at the front?
	It's going to be Wikipedia.
	It's going to be MSM News commentary.
	And so what they do is that they use that echo chamber that's been formed by this Mockingbird media in order to come up with, hey, this person is, you know, are they, are they authoritative?
	And if they're not, then they don't get linked.
	They get downranked off of the search engine.
	And they determine who's authoritative.
	So they say there are X number of sources, here they are, and these people are sort of the arbiters of truth, and then everything feeds from that.
	Is that how it works? Yeah, and with strong emphasis on what Wikipedia has to say about an individual.
	Really? They rely on Wikipedia to then determine other Google search results?
	That's correct. Wikipedia is assumed to be a high authoritative source of legitimate information.
	Got it. Okay. So that feeds into an algorithm that then looks at what other people are saying about that and who they link to.
	And then from that, like you're saying, it is just an echo chamber.
	All these people are saying this is true, so we're going to feed more of that truthfulness into our algorithm, which then just kind of feeds on itself.
	That's correct. So if you were to do a search, let's say, for James O'Keefe, what you're going to see is you're going to see all these media hit pieces.
	And so you get this echo chamber that gets exposed to the rater, and so the rater says, oh, well, anything with Project Veritas is misinformation, right?
	Right. OMG Media now.
	And so they're literally sampling their own echo chamber in order to reinforce that echo chamber in a never-ending cycle.
	And I thought that this was sort of like an artifact of complexity, but then I discovered through a series of slides, one of them I'm going to show you right now, which is they had this by design.
	And here's a thing.
	Is it focusing? Yeah, there we go.
	It's a four-step process of brainwashing.
	And this wasn't just in one slide.
	This was in a bunch of different slides throughout the company, written by their AI ethicist.
	So it wasn't even written by some engineer.
	And the four steps are training data are collected and classified.
	Algorithms are programmed.
	Media are filtered, ranked, aggregated, or generated.
	And then the last step right here, People like us are programmed.
	Okay? They literally said that in multiple slides within the company by their AI. People are programmed.
	Yes. This is why they're doing it.
	They've come out and said it that we're programmable units.
	They see Google search, Google News and YouTube as the avenues to manipulate us.
	And they're going to take Full advantage of that in order to push social justice and equity and all the other blah, blah, blah, global narrative talking points to destabilize and subvert the United States ultimately.
	That's my interpretation. I mean, obviously, they're thinking it's a new thing, but...
	You know, these elites have gone out of control and it's like, I was just reading something from the New Yorker the other day about, you know, advocating for shredding the Constitution because it's standing in the way of democracy, right?
	Like, we see what the end state of all this and what's really shocking to me is the degree that the leftists within the company don't see what's clearly right in front of their faces, right?
	Like, you know, you would think that with this Russia collusion hoax that happened that they would take a step back and they would say, hey, what are we doing, right?
	Like, The elites are lying to us like they've been lying to us for decades.
	Vietnam, Iraq War, Bosnia, Libya.
	Inflation is transitory.
	Just take your pick, right?
	And the funny thing is that no matter how many times it's been proven that these elites are pushing misinformation through state propaganda outlets, these leftists still grasp on to whatever the current thing narrative is and they roll with it.
	Right.
	Right. You're saying, hey, why is Mars and Pluto also experiencing global warming?
	You try to write about that, you're out of a job.
	Same thing with the media, like April Moss or Irie Hecker, some of the Project Veritas whistleblowers.
	As soon as they come out and they say, hey, this is bullshit, they're gone.
	They're out. There's no dissent.
	And this is the problem, is that they want to erase the consent of I think?
	And I thought that there would be a lot more people at Google that would not be okay with this, right?
	Especially since we were all like, oh, democracy, and, you know, let everyone have a voice and organize the world's information and make it universally accessible.
	It's like, do those words have any meaning?
	Like, you usually want to build a house on a stable foundation.
	And it seemed that Google was built on that stable foundation for their constitutional statements.
	But instead, what we got was we got, you know, it turned out that this was a train and that it had got, And everyone that worked there got off at the stop and they said, oh, we're going to go full authoritarian.
	So I searched for this information trying to figure out and make sense of this world because I'm obsessed with trying to make sense of the world.
	And so curiosity got the better of me and I get this machine learning fairness.
	And what I found with machine learning fairness is that it had already infected all of their different...
	Corpuses of search information.
	Google News, Google Search, YouTube Video, and name any one of their other services that are popular.
	I think those are the big three.
	What I found within the documentation is that they had already infected these corpuses and they're basically turning it up to 11.
	And so I started to look, and I was like, okay, what are the algorithms based on?
	How are they manipulating search?
	And so I'd like to show this to you.
	So this is their real-time events monitoring.
	So they find documents.
	They find spikes in the clusters, and then boom, there's an event.
	And what's interesting is that the first, they start off with sports.
	Who cares? But what's interesting is that later on down the line, what you find is all this stuff explicitly about Trump.
	Trump fires Comey, news cluster, da-da-da-da.
	And then this is a real-time event.
	And they're saying it on the news media, Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	So much of this, over and over again, has to do with whatever the current narrative thing about Trump.
	And they're like, well, we didn't like the results of what the media was generating and how they're being indexed on Google, so let's nip that in the bud.
	And so they come up with this theory that they've got this story, like this was the status quo over here.
	They got the story, they got an event, and what they want to do is that they say, well, we need to link all these stories together to Because really what they're doing is we're creating a mega story.
	And so once they came up with this sort of plan to boost and re-rank content based upon clusters of related news stories, guess what the Mockingbird media started to do?
	They wouldn't let it go, right?
	What they did is that they kept on talking about like Trump firing Comey or kids in cages and stuff like that.
	And by repeatedly pushing out story after story after story, what it would do is it would game the algorithm and So that they would get to the top of the search rankings, right?
	And you started to get some really weird stuff that would come out.
	You remember during COVID, you could type in any sort of number and people died, and you would get an article with that exact number of people dying.
	And so what was happening is that, in my theory, my understanding is that they were using artificial intelligence to generate fake articles so that they would flood the system so that no matter what you would look at, they would hijack your search terms and then bring it back to state propaganda talking points.
	So for example, when it came out that the kids in cages in the photo that they were using to attack Trump was actually a recycled image from the Obama years, right?
	The response by the Mockingbird Media was to essentially use those long-tail keywords that people were searching to contradict the narrative, and then they were inserting that into their articles so that, because of their EAT score, their articles would get posted to the top of the search rankings, right?
	Burying the actual news article from the Gateway Pundit and Breitbart and all these other news organizations, these dissident news organizations that are trying to give a counter-narrative, all of those stuff would be buried.
	And so you try to tell this to a normie.
	They go directly to Google, they do a search, and then it comes right back into status propaganda.
	And they're like, what?
	Is the whole thing rigged against you?
	And it's like, yeah, obviously. So how does this part work?
	So what you're saying is there's the first way that Google manipulates it, which is by just somebody at Google, I presume, determines here are the experts, here are the sources that we can rely on, ABC, CNN, whatever.
	And then everything kind of feeds from there.
	People look at CNN and then they...
	Write the same things and that just sort of has this feedback loop and it amplifies their content and their ideology.
	But what you're saying now is something a little different.
	It's sort of a separate way of doing it, a second way.
	They're actually able to take little bits of information from multiple sources and create a story.
	Am I understanding that correctly?
	They bootstrapped the echo chamber through human raiders.
	They create this echo chamber.
	Then the transition to artificial intelligence is the reinforcing of that already established echo chamber.
	When the AI came online, it was already decided that New York Times and Wall Street Journal and all these others were authoritative, credible sources of information.
	So what they're able to do now is that they're able to have, instead of humans that sit there and take...
	I mean, those humans take a lot of time to rate those webpages, right?
	Now you can have an AI that looks at it within a split second and is able to come up with that ranking themselves.
	And what that allows them to do is that as the media news cycle turns left and right, whatever...
	They're able to quickly retune the entire engine.
	Instead of creating a document and sending it out to the Raiders, like, okay, different game plan now, they can just do it to the AI, which isn't going to complain, which isn't going to talk back, which isn't going to have moral objections to the new ranking of players.
	Global content. They flip a switch, insert their new terms, and then boom, all of a sudden you have state propaganda pieces like the New York Times hijacking keywords that people would search for the counter-narrative being rerouted into an anti-Trump, pro-deep state narrative that cycles over and over and over again every single day.
	Wow. Well, that's something that you can – or I've sort of noticed if I go on Google and will try to search some conservative topic, like you said, maybe COVID deaths or election fraud, and all you get are CNN or MSNBC or some left-leaning source.
	It's very difficult to actually get a conservative opinion article on Google now.
	I guess this is why.
	Yeah, that and also the extensive use of blacklists throughout the different company.
	If I can just show you for a second, these are some of the blacklists that I've done.
	We're not going to go into the YouTube blacklist because it's so shocking that you may get blowback.
	Let's go to Google Now's censorship.
	Google Now was a product on the Android phones that tried to merge a bunch of different Google services in order to provide an AI-like experience before AI was the current state of the world.
	Yeah.
	okay they've got a lot of porn and you know torrent freaks and where's the suppressing that sort of stuff but what's really interesting and this is what they do they start out with like oh we got to get rid of pornography or your or pirated software it always starts with something noble right we got to protect the children and then all of a sudden the gateway pundit is showing up on a porn and malicious malware list right
	And if you look at this, it goes all the way from these torrents right into conservative content.
	And these are just URLs that they don't show or they put as the 10,000th search result, basically.
	Right. Well, now they don't even have that, right?
	Like they say, oh, it was like millions of views or millions of hits, but then, you know, you go to page seven and then they're like, no more search results.
	You're like, wait, you just showed 120 search results.
	I thought there were millions. Why aren't you showing me the rest?
	And so before it was just downranking.
	Now it's just, they just truncate the end of the list and you're effectively buried and censored.
	You can't even like use the exact keyword search terms to find what you're looking for anymore.
	And that's the extent of the search engine manipulation.
	They can just, you know, if you're off the Google search engine, then you might as well not exist at all.
	Right? Right.
	Well, you hear leftists talk a lot about, we believe in freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
	And it sounds like this pithy, clever way of kind of being in favor of the First Amendment when you're not.
	But That's what this is.
	This is saying, you can say what you want, we're just going to bury you so nobody hears you.
	That's what censorship is.
	I can sit in a room in a jail cell and say whatever I want, but as long as I'm in the jail cell, it doesn't matter.
	Right. One of the disturbing things about this, which is the AI aspect, is that that's how they do this at scale.
	You alluded to it, but you can't have human reviewers who look at every single domain online or who read every single article and come up with this stuff.
	But they can come up with ways of creating these feedback loops where they can...
	It sounds like Google can index the entire web with artificial intelligence and the criteria that a few people at Google create.
	And they can do that fairly quickly.
	Yeah, and then they can re-rank it within a matter of hours.
	Oh, the criteria changed because of some media story that just came out.
	Some bombshell expose.
	So we're going to... We're going to adjust the dials, and then we're going to reset the rankings, and then boom, within two hours of a story comes out, the entire internet's been re-ranked in real time, in response to whatever the current thing narrative is.
	And you can tell, after Burning Man, I went to Burning Man this year, it was great.
	Don't listen to the propaganda, there was no cannibalism or Ebola, it was fine, it was great.
	I tried to find videos.
	I made a video about Burning Man, so I was trying to find a bunch of content on it.
	I swear every single link for pages and pages and pages with CBS, NBC, you could only find their stuff.
	And what you should know is that that's a temporary measure that captures the bulk of the users searching for a particular topic when that topic is fresh.
	So everyone was talking about Burning Man because of the rain out.
	And so what Google did is that they pushed only the MSM and what their videos were about.
	Burning Man, right?
	Mm-hmm. That period is over.
	Then they start allowing other content to bubble up slowly when the mass of the people have moved on to the new current thing narrative.
	Right. It kind of makes sense the way you're describing that because that's how the mainstream media works.
	ABC will put out an article with just obviously false information and every other news outlet will then rely on that to then create their own stories using that information, which is also false, which it sounds like Based on this Google system you just described is a perfect way of amplifying false information because then all of these authoritative sources are relying on each other, which just boosts the message and then more people jump onto it and it just feeds from that.
	But then ABC may issue a correction, they just won't do it until a week later whenever nobody cares.
	And at that point, it's irrelevant.
	Yeah, and they try to argue a leftist with that.
	They're like, well, we already knew all that was true.
	And it's just like, no, it literally didn't.
	It's like the whole vaccine thing.
	Oh, I was always skeptical about vaccines, is the narrative that I guess.
	Like, no, you yelled at me because I even suggested that the COVID vaccine, mRNA experimental vaccine might be harmful.
	Which I never got, because I'm not an idiot.
	And then their position changes.
	And we've got to realize that this disclosure is part of the propaganda method that they use in order to sort of correct themselves with the bounds of reality, but they do it at a later time when it doesn't matter that much anymore.
	Right, the damage is already done.
	And last question, because I could talk to you all day, this is fascinating, but A lot of times you'll hear conservatives or even libertarians say things like, well, Google and Facebook and all these different platforms, they're private enterprises.
	They can do whatever they want.
	We've kind of seen, at least from Twitter for certain and from Facebook, that that's not true.
	private, they could do whatever.
	Dude, they were founded by the venture capital arm of the CIA.
	Okay, let's get that straight.
	It was In-Q-Tel, right?
	And I worked for one of the startups from In-Q-Tel, which was Google Earth, called Keyhole back then, and then it got acquired by Google.
	I joined after the acquisition.
	And they're all talking and laughing about how Google Earth, Keyhole software, was founded by the venture capital arm of the CIA.
	So this idea that they're like a private entity, they can do what they want.
	No, they were born as a quasi-state actor by the deep state themselves.
	They've never been a private organization.
	They are a fusion between globalist power and technocracy.
	And they operate that way as well.
	They just took the mask off and let us know who they really were all along.
	This is fascinating. Like I said, I could ask you questions for another three hours, but Zach, thanks for coming on.
	Your book, again, is called Google Leaks, and people can get that on Amazon and on your website as well.
	That's correct. And I do want to also push a site that I built during the height of the censorship.
	When Biden got elected, I created the website called Blast.video.
	It features your channel as well as a bunch of other conservative content.
	It's better than the recommendation engine from Rumble or BitChute or anywhere else on the whole world.
	And we actually get a lot of traffic every single day.
	It's now a side project.
	I'm working for a non-profit organization.
	That I can't talk about, but working behind the scenes in a way that has maximizing my social impact.
	But unfortunately, I can't talk about it until probably after the election, to be honest.
	So we have to be secret on that.
	Interesting. Well, Zach, thanks for joining.
	It was fascinating. Thank you, Brandon.
	You take care. You too.
	Last month, the G20 announced that it welcomed discussion of the effects of implementing central bank digital currencies in their countries.
	These digital currencies could allow the government to track every purchase you make.
	They could even allow officials to prohibit you from purchasing certain products or easily freeze or seize part or all of your money.
	In essence, they could enable the government to take more control over your finances.
	Concerned Americans are diversifying their assets into physical gold with the help of Birch Gold Group.
	If you want a physical asset held in a tax-sheltered retirement account, you should call Birch Gold too.
	Dinesh and Debbie are customers.
	They buy their gold through Birch Gold.
	But find out for yourself.
	Text Dinesh to 989-898 and they'll send you a free info kit on gold.
	Here's the easiest way to become a Birch Gold customer.
	If you have an IRA or a 401k from a previous employer just gathering dust, Birch Gold can help you convert it into an IRA in gold and you don't pay a penny out of pocket.
	Text Dinesh to 989-898.
	Claim your free info kit on gold, then call them.
	Because if digital currency becomes a reality, it'll be nice to have some gold to fall back on.
	Well, that wraps things up for today.
	Thanks for joining us.
	Again, I'm Brandon Gill, sitting in for Dinesh today.
	Check out my website, DC Inquirer.
	We talked a little bit about it earlier, so now you need to check it out for yourself.
	That's DC Inquirer with an E. You'll find all kinds of breaking news and conservative commentary.
	Like we said, the stuff that you won't get anywhere else, particularly related to our great President Trump.
	You can also find me on social media.
	I'm at RealBrandonGill on Twitter, just at BrandonGill on Truth, and I'm on Facebook and Instagram as well.
	And most importantly, if you haven't seen it already, make sure you stream Police State.
	It's on Rumble right now.
	Get your friends and family to watch it.
	We need to get as many people as we possibly can to watch this and understand what's going on in the country.
	So that's Police State.
	The great documentary by my father-in-law Dinesh D'Souza.
	Make sure you check it out and we'll see you again tomorrow.

▲