The Internet Archive Deleted My PS2 Project
Credibility score: 46/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "The Internet Archive Deleted My PS2 Project" and rated it 46/100 for credibility (a BS score of 54/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-08-08. Its weakest claim — "Loaded language: ‘burning entries’ paints deletion as arson" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as loaded language. 25 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Speaker details their PS2 demo disc archiving project and its purpose. — No Frame (75/100)
Just setting the scene here, explaining the project and its goals. Pretty straightforward.
Speaker lists the benefits of their archive project for retro gamers and archivists. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Framing the project around 'nostalgia' and 'free access' to appeal to specific audiences and build sympathy for the project.
Speaker claims their PS2 demo post was restricted without their action. — No Frame (75/100)
This is a direct, personal account of an event. It's a factual statement about their experience.
Speaker states their post remained locked and they received no notification or explanation. — No Frame (75/100)
A clear, personal account of the issue persisting and the lack of communication from the platform.
Speaker frames the site as 'janky' to explain their initial inaction. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Using 'janky' sets a negative tone for the site's functionality, justifying their delay in seeking help.
Speaker details repeated attempts to contact support and the vague, unhelpful response received. — Missing Context (45/100)
The speaker highlights the lack of explanation from the Internet Archive, framing their response as unhelpful.
Speaker frames their follow-up as 'straight to the point' due to perceived ignored questions. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling their response 'straight to the point' and claiming questions were 'clearly ignored' adds emotional weight.
Speaker frames the final response as dismissive and the Archive as 'confused' about their desire for an explanation. — Loaded Language (45/100)
The speaker uses 'more than two sentences!' and 'confused' to emphasize the Archive's perceived unhelpfulness and lack of understanding.
Pins account deletion on IA spite — Emotional Button + Missing Context — Emotional Button (35/100)
The drawn-out 'Annnnddd' plus 'just delete' frames it as vindictive retaliation rather than a standard escalation step.
Claims 'never broke rules' as proof of unfairness — Confidence Mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (40/100)
Treats the initial lock (not deletion) as conclusive evidence that no rule was broken, ignoring possible investigation stages.
Calls IA staff hypocrites — loaded language, no receipts shown — Loaded Language (35/100)
Instant character attack without showing the alleged hypocrisy yet — emotional button.
Claims 'nearly every entry' is copyrighted — sweeping generalization, missing nuance — Missing Context (45/100)
Blurs the line between public-domain scans, licensed collections, and actual infringement.
False equivalence: my demos vs. major studio leaks — False Equivalence (45/100)
Sets up two very different situations as identical — indie demo vs. corporate IP — so the inconsistency looks outrageous.
Loaded language: ‘burning entries’ paints deletion as arson — Loaded Language (20/100)
Uses incendiary verb ‘burning’ to turn routine moderation into deliberate destruction, priming outrage.
Straw man: assumes Archive will censor Stokes archive without evidence — Straw Man (20/100)
Poses a loaded hypothetical about editing Stokes’ tapes that no one has proposed, then attacks the Archive for it.
Pushes hypothetical ban as logical conclusion — straw man escalation — Straw Man (40/100)
Turns IA's enforcement inconsistency into an all-or-nothing ban threat that IA never stated.
Loaded language branding — rhetorical trap via institutional identity — Loaded Language (35/100)
Uses 'library/archive' as moral trump card to imply total archival duty.
Shifts from archiving to 'hiding' — loaded pivot via intent framing — Loaded Language (40/100)
Re-labels curation decisions as deliberate concealment to heighten suspicion.
Emotional button — frames cost as total loss regardless of outcome — Emotional Button (50/100)
Uses dollar amount to evoke waste without showing zero value delivered.
Cherry-picks timeline gap to imply mismanagement — missing full funding context — Cherry-Picked (45/100)
Highlights delay and funding contradiction while omitting IA's actual budget line items.
Volume game — big donation numbers vs small project cost creates outrage math — Volume Game (50/100)
Stacks raw totals without showing how much actually reached Stokes project.
Explaining the delay in discussing the project's removal — setting the scene for frustration. — No Frame (75/100)
Just setting the context for why he's bringing this up now. Makes sense to address the 'why now?' question upfront.
Emphasizing personal effort and loss — using emotional appeal to connect with the audience. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Highlighting the 'hard work' and 'only thing left' frames the situation as a personal tragedy, not just a technical issue.
Highlighting community engagement and reach — implying the project's value and impact. — Missing Context (45/100)
Mentions 'more Favorites, comments, archivists' but no specific numbers. It's a 'volume game' without the volume.
Framing the deletion as a loss for the community — emphasizing future missed opportunities. — Emotional Button (45/100)
This isn't just about his project; it's about 'you guys' missing out on future content. Classic emotional appeal.
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →