Lunduke
News • Science & Tech
Google Drive censors files of Pfizer whistleblower
... and Google's stated reasons were obviously false.
May 27, 2024
post photo preview

Another day, another story of Big Tech suppressing information and censoring individuals.

What follows is a story which deals with topics that many will find extremely political.  But, in truth, the core of this story is one which should be a concern to everyone, regardless of political stances: Big Tech (in this case, Google) actively censoring whistleblower material regarding a different corporation.

Google Drive vs The Pfizer Whistleblower

On May 8th, 2024, a corporate whistleblower by the name of Melissa McAtee, uploaded a 40 slide PowerPoint file to her Google Drive.

That PowerPoint slide deck -- "Pfizer testimony.pptx" -- contained documentation and emails from her time working for Pfizer.  Over the days that followed, Mrs McAtte shared this file with others.

15 days later, on May 23rd, Google sent an email to Mrs McAtee, letting her know that Google had determined the file "contains content that may violate Google Drive's Dangerous and Illegal Activities policy" and that "Some features related to this file may have been restricted."

Screenshot of the email to Mellisa McAtee

 

What, exactly, is the "Google Drive Dangerous and Illegal Activity" policy?  Turns out... it consists of just one paragraph.  Here it is, in its entirety.

"Do not use this product to engage in illegal activities or to promote activities, goods, services, or information that cause serious and immediate harm to people or animals. While we permit general information for educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic purposes about this content, we draw the line when the content directly facilitates harm or encourages illegal activity. We will take appropriate action if we are notified of unlawful activities, which may include reporting you to the relevant authorities, removing access to some of our products, or disabling your Google Account."

Which begs the question... did this PowerPoint file "directly facilitate harm or encourage illegal activity"?

The short answer: No.  Not even remotely.

The Lunduke Journal reached out to Mrs McAtee to obtain a copy of this file, which was promptly provided.  And, after a careful review, it can be definitively said that this file neither facilitates harm, nor encourages illegal activity.

Title page of the censored PowerPoint file.

The contents of this PowerPoint slide deck consists predominantly of notated screenshots of corporate emails and policy documents.  Which, while some of the contents may be embarrassing to Pfizer (a mega corporation of over 80,000 employees, with roughly $100 Billion in revenue for 2020), those leaked emails or policy documents are not even remotely "directly facilitating harm".

Most of this censored PowerPoint file looks like this.  Screenshots of emails and documents.

Regardless of what you, me, or anyone else thinks of any politically charged topics surrounding Pfizer, vaccines, the medical industry, or corporate whistleblowers... this incident raises a few questions regarding both Google and censorship of digital files.

Why, exactly, did Google censor this file?

As of this moment, the details of why Google censored this file remains... murky.

Being as it can be easily demonstrated that this PowerPoint file does not violate Google Drives "Dangerous and Illegal Activity" in any obvious way (ie. it does not "directly facilitate harm or encourage illegal activity"), this suggests that there is some other reason for this censorship.

  • Did Pfizer request or demand the censorship?
  • Is there a business relationship between Google and Pfizer at play?
  • Was this censorship approved because of personal, political leanings of leadership within Google?
  • Or, perhaps, is this simply a matter of file scanning and AI systems auto-censoring files stored within Google Drive?

The truth is, while many will make some assumptions regarding Google's motives, we don't really know.

When The Lunduke Journal asked Mrs McAtee, she was uncertain of what initiated the censorship.  "It may have been reported," stated McAtee.  "Or they had AI scan it because it had the word Pfizer in it."

The Lunduke Journal reached out to Google for comment and clarification.  Likewise, The Lunduke Journal reached out to Pfizer, asking if their company had requested that Google censor this material.  As of the publishing of this article, no response has been received from either company.

What we do know: Their real reasons for censoring this file were not, at all, what they stated to the person they censored.

Is it safe to store files with Google?

Regardless of why Google decided to censor this file, one thing is made very clear:

If we, as individuals, are looking to store critical, or potentially controversial files... Google Drive (and, likely, other Google services) are not reliable systems to use.

Because Google censors files.  And they misrepresent their reasons for doing so.

It's also important to note that this is not an isolated incident.  Google has a long track record of censoring, shadow-banning, and otherwise removing content from all of their services.  Be it public facing videos on YouTube or personal files stored on Google Drive.

Heck, The Lunduke Journal was temporarily banned from YouTube -- earlier this year -- after the publishing of polling data which Google / YouTube did not like.  And that was not the first time YouTube censored The Lunduke Journal for expressing an opinion or publishing a set of data.

So.  Is it safe to store files with Google?  Can we count on them, as a company, to not arbitrarily censor content?  Obviously not.

Where can we reliably store sensitive files?

While Google is, obviously, not a good option to store or distribute files (unless you want them censored without warning or cause)... there are, luckily, a few options out there which are a bit more... reliable.

Both Rumble and Locals have taken firm non-censorship stances on published videos.  Likewise Locals and Substack have stood firm on not censoring articles, PDFs, and other types of files (even when their executive teams and staff disagree or dislike the content being published).

And, of course, there is always the option of self-hosting your own files -- which provides an extra layer of safety from censorship.  But that's a bigger topic, for a different time.

But, if you are going to use Google (or other Big Tech services for hosting your potentially sensitive files)... be sure to have local backups.  Because the odds of your files being deleted for "wrong think" are... non zero.

community logo
Join the Lunduke Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
12
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Rust Changes from "Master" to "Main"

Two weeks ago, The Lunduke Journal pointed out how many Leftist Open Source organizations (Rust, NixOS, Linux Kernel, etc.) still used the "Master" branch naming (against their "inclusive naming" rules). Yesterday, Rust changed to "Main".

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:05:11
GNOME Foundation Discusses Refusing Funds from Framework Computer

Framework Computer is offering monthly financial support to the GNOME Foundation. Framework also supports Omarchy Linux & Hyprland, which GNOME activists call "Fascist", so GNOME may refuse those funds.

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:09:00
The Confidential Communication from UK's Ofcom to 4Chan

The lawyer representing 4chan has provided documents sent by the UK's Office of Communications (marked CONFIDENTIAL). And they are absolutely wild.

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:19:31
November 22, 2023
The futility of Ad-Blockers

Ads are filling the entirety of the Web -- websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. -- at an increasing rate. Prices for those ad placements are plummeting. Consumers are desperate to use ad-blockers to make the web palatable. Google (and others) are desperate to break and block ad-blockers. All of which results in... more ads and lower pay for creators.

It's a fascinatingly annoying cycle. And there's only one viable way out of it.

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links? Check here:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

The futility of Ad-Blockers
November 21, 2023
openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"

Those in power with openSUSE make it clear they will not allow me anywhere near anything related to the openSUSE project. Ever. For any reason.

Well, that settles that, then! Guess I won't be contributing to openSUSE! 🤣

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links?
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"
September 13, 2023
"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

This episode is free for all to enjoy and share.

Be sure to subscribe here at Lunduke.Locals.com to get all shows & articles (including interviews with other amazing nerds).

"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

Locals has some serious issues with notifications and it is seriously getting annoying. How can the folks behind this platform not have noticed and fixed it already?

8-bit week starts at midnight, where ever you might be. Head over to the forum and join in! Or, you know, just do it here. We'll run it until 11:59 PM 26 October 2025. Please tag your posts with "#8-bit-week" and I'll try to post a daily-ish summary.

post photo preview

Anyone down for some Fujinet 5-Card Stud, or Yahtzee?

post photo preview
October 15, 2025
post photo preview
The Unpublished Anti-Lunduke Hit-Piece
A Tech Journalist interviewed me for a hit-piece article. But the questions made them look bad, and they shelved the story. So I'm publishing their hit-piece for them.

Back in September, shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I was contacted by a Tech Journalist writing for FossForce.com (a smaller, Open Source focused publication) who was working on an article around Open Source, Antifa, and the Lunduke Journal’s coverage of those topics.

This particular outlet had, several months prior, run an “anti-Lunduke” hit piece without first reaching out for comment — which resulted in their most popular article (at least on social media) in quite some time.

With that in mind, it seemed reasonable that they’d want to repeat that success with another “anti-Lunduke” story.

This time they were doing the responsible thing. They reached out to the subject of the hit-piece article with questions. I like encouraging Tech Journalists when they do actual journalism, so I answered each and every query with easy-to-quote responses.

But, it would appear that the answers they received were not conducive to creating the hit-piece they were hoping for — my guess is they realized their questions made them look like the villain in the story. The villain they, clearly, hoped to portray me as.

They opted to not publish the piece.

So I’m publishing their hit-piece for them.

Below is every question — and every answer (with no edits) — which I was asked, on September 19th, by a Tech Journalist by the name of Christine Hall, writing for FossForce.

Fair warning: This is very, very politically charged.

Enjoy.


September 19th

Hall:

The last time I mentioned you in an article, you castigated me for not reaching out to you beforehand. Well, I’m reaching out now. We’ll see what comes of this.

You do recognize that the vast majority of organizations using the term antifa as a descriptor are not in the least bit terrorist and pose no threat to society -- and indeed, the only threats they might pose to fascist groups are not physical or life-harming?

Lunduke:

Hello Christine! Nice to hear from you!

Many, if not most, of those proclaiming support for Antifa (within Open Source) have also made statements encouraging or supporting violence and discrimination.

Regardless of that fact -- which I have documented extensively in Lunduke Journal coverage -- when violent acts are committed (such as murder, riots, and lynchings) in the name of “Antifa”, to turn around and immediately declare yourself to be “Antifa” is a clear declaration of support of that violence.

Hall:

And why did you feel it necessary to call out Danielle Foré’s [the founder of the elementary OS Linux Distribution] trans status in such an ugly manner?

Lunduke:

There is a noteworthy overlap between “Trans activism” and support for political violence -- including in the recent murder of Charlie Kirk (the murderer’s boyfriend was “Trans”).

In the case of Daniel Fore, he, a leader of an Open Source project, regularly calls for discrimination (and violence) against people he disagrees with -- often in conjunction with his self-declaration as “Trans”.

Thus, his declaration of being “Trans” becomes a part of the overall story.

It is worth noting here that The Lunduke Journal has never -- and would never -- call for discrimination or violence against someone because of how they identify or who they may (or may not) vote for.

This is in stark contrast those, such as Mr. Fore, who consider themselves “Trans” or “Antifa” -- who actively advocate for both discrimination and violence.

Hall:

Mentioning a person’s trans status in ways that are pertinent to your argument necessates rudeness such as calling her a “dude who likes to wear dresses”?

Lunduke:

Dan Fore is, in fact, a dude who likes to wear dresses.

The only reason to view that as a negative is if you view dudes wearing dresses as a negative.

Hall:

I’ll quote you on that, which I’m pretty sure won’t bother you in the least.

Lunduke:

Absolutely! Quote anything I say here. In fact, I suggest quoting absolutely everything I’ve written to you here, today.

Hall:

You also understand, don’t you, that voicing disagreement with an assessment made by POTUS is not only legal but a healthy part of the national dialog.

Lunduke:

Absolutely! Did I say somewhere that it was illegal to disagree with a politician? It seems unlikely that I have ever said that.

Hall:

Also, how would you reply to this:

There have been very few murders linked to individuals associated with Antifa, some incidents of rioting attributed to Antifa supporters, and no credible evidence of lynchings conducted in the name of Antifa. Compared to far-right groups, violence attributed to Antifa is much less frequent and lethal, with only one suspected kill—Aaron Danielson in Portland, by an anti-fascist activist—officially confirmed in recent U.S. history.

Lunduke:

Murder is bad. I am opposed to all murder.

In the context of these discussions, bearing in mind the Kirk murder is important (as many statements were made in response to it). The murderer of Kirk appears to have been pro-Trans and pro-Antifa (based on all available information).

Hall:

Is there any evidence that the suspect was part of an antifa group? I haven’t seen any.

Lunduke:

I have seen some reporting to this effect (including statements from family and messages he wrote).

But, far more important to this story, is the response to the murder among Antifa supporters (including those within Open Source). A large portion of Antifa supporters have celebrated the murder as justified because it killed someone they considered to be a “fascist”.

Hall:

Also, no group should be held responsible for what some deranged person who identifies with the group has done.

Lunduke:

I agree that a broader group should not be held responsible for the actions of a small number of individuals.

However, and this is critically important, it is entirely appropriate to hold people responsible for their own statements and actions.

With that in mind: The overall messaging of Antifa (and Antifa supporters) tends heavily towards violence. Punching, killing, molotov cocktails, etc. are all common messaging used by Antifa (including by those I quote within the Open Source world -- many of whom have advocated violence against myself).

Advocating for violence, then celebrating when violence is committed, are not good things.

Yet we see a great deal of that among Open Source supporters of Antifa.

Read full Article
October 13, 2025
Sale ends in a few hours, Lifetime Subs set up.

Holy moly, you guys are amazing.

A few days ago I published a “50% off” sale for Lunduke Journal subscriptions… and all of you showed up. In a big way.

To everyone who grabbed a Lifetime Subscription over the last few days: All of you are set to full Lifetime access. You should have a confirmation email in your inbox. If not, email me and I’ll make sure you’re setup properly.

That “50% off” sale ends tonight at midnight. So you have a few hours to snag a discounted subscription, if you haven’t already.

A huge thank you to everyone who supports this work. Couldn’t do it without you.

-Lunduke

Read full Article
October 12, 2025
50% Off Lunduke Journal Extended Through Monday (Oct 13th)

Just a quick heads up:

The “50% off every kind of Subscription to The Lunduke Journal” sale has been extended through Monday (October 13th).

So. You know. Grab one at 50% off between now and end of the day on Monday.

To all of you amazing nerds who have picked up a Lifetime Subscription already this weekend: You are awesome. You’ll be receiving a confirmation email, with all of the Lifetime Subscription details, by tomorrow (if you haven’t already).

Oh, and remember how we hit 11 Million views last month? Yeah. We’re well on our way to blowing past those numbers in October.

Wild.

See you all on Monday!

-Lunduke

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals