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.
Of 25 claims analyzed: 5 scored under 40, 16 between 40 and 69, and 4 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Speaker details their PS2 demo disc archiving project and its purpose. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:00
Just setting the scene here, explaining the project and its goals. Pretty straightforward.
Why this score: The speaker is providing background context for the video's main topic. This is a neutral introduction, laying out the premise of their project without any apparent rhetorical manipulation. It's simply informational.
Original quote: “On March 10th, 2023, I posted a video announcing an archive project I’ve been working on. I backed up all my old PlayStation 2 demo discs I’ve kept since I was a kid to the Internet Archive share with you all, so those curious could experience how gamers in the 2000s got their gaming news, updates,…”
Speaker lists the benefits of their archive project for retro gamers and archivists. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:14
Framing the project around 'nostalgia' and 'free access' to appeal to specific audiences and build sympathy for the project.
Why this score: The speaker is using emotionally resonant language like 're-experience their nostalgia' and highlighting 'free and easy access' for archivists. This isn't inherently false, but it's a clear rhetorical choice to frame the project in a positive, community-benefiting light, setting up a contrast for whatever negative event is about to be revealed. It's pushing an 'emotional button' to get the audience on their side early.
Original quote: “so retro gamers could re-experience their nostalgia playing earlier versions of their favorite games (especially if you’ve owned these demo discs before); and so game archivists have free and easy access to playable demos and trailers of games in their earlier versions to document and datamine,”
Speaker claims their PS2 demo post was restricted without their action. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:35
This is a direct, personal account of an event. It's a factual statement about their experience.
Why this score: The speaker is describing a specific event that happened to them on the Internet Archive. This is a personal testimony, not a claim about external facts, so it's presented as straightforward. There's no obvious rhetorical manipulation here; they're just stating what occurred.
Original quote: “In July of 2025, when posting a backup of Ace Attorney sprite rips onto the site, I noticed something odd about my PS2 demo Internet Archive post. Its status said it was “restricted”. I never set it to that, so I immediately edited the post to remove its “locked” status.”
Speaker states their post remained locked and they received no notification or explanation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:51
A clear, personal account of the issue persisting and the lack of communication from the platform.
Why this score: This continues the speaker's personal narrative about their experience with the Internet Archive. They are detailing the observed behavior of the site and the absence of expected communication (emails/notifications). This is presented as a direct observation of events, not an attempt to frame a broader issue yet.
Original quote: “But after doing so, my post remained locked. Even when trying to open the link on another browser I’m not logged into, the site blocks me from seeing my post or downloading anything from it. I should point out now that I never received any email or notification of any kind about this so I have no…”
Speaker frames the site as 'janky' to explain their initial inaction. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:12
Using 'janky' sets a negative tone for the site's functionality, justifying their delay in seeking help.
Why this score: The word 'janky' is loaded language. While it might reflect the speaker's genuine experience, it's not a neutral description. It frames the Internet Archive as generally unreliable, which then serves to explain why they initially dismissed the 'restricted' status as a mere 'glitch' rather than a deliberate action. A neutral framing might describe specific technical issues without the pejorative term.
Original quote: “In addition, it’s quite janky when making uploads and navigating the site as a user. So this is also why I didn’t initially think there was any problem with my account’s standing and chalked it up to a website glitch.”
Speaker details repeated attempts to contact support and the vague, unhelpful response received. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 1:23
The speaker highlights the lack of explanation from the Internet Archive, framing their response as unhelpful.
Why this score: The speaker is framing the Internet Archive's response as unhelpful and evasive by emphasizing what was *not* said ('No explanation as to why...'). While the quoted response is vague, the speaker is highlighting the missing context from the Archive's side to build a narrative of frustration and lack of transparency. A neutral presentation would simply state the response received, without the added commentary about what was missing.
Original quote: “I then contacted the Internet Archive via their official email address for help in this matter and so they could unlock my post. But I never got a response. So I contacted them again in August, and this time they answered me back. …Eeeexcept all they said was they: “cannot do it at this time”. No…”
Speaker frames their follow-up as 'straight to the point' due to perceived ignored questions. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:47
Calling their response 'straight to the point' and claiming questions were 'clearly ignored' adds emotional weight.
Why this score: The phrases 'straight to the point' and 'clearly ignoring my questions' are loaded. They convey the speaker's frustration and judgment of the Internet Archive's communication, rather than neutrally describing the interaction. This framing is designed to elicit sympathy for the speaker and paint the Archive in a negative light regarding their customer service. A neutral account would simply list the questions asked and note the lack of response.
Original quote: “I respond back— straight to the point— since they were clearly ignoring my questions: 1. Why can you “not do anything at this time”? 2. Why did you lock my upload in the first place? 3. And why do you block me from unlocking the post myself? I never got a response. So I emailed them again a week…”
Speaker frames the final response as dismissive and the Archive as 'confused' about their desire for an explanation. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:07
The speaker uses 'more than two sentences!' and 'confused' to emphasize the Archive's perceived unhelpfulness and lack of understanding.
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language like 'more than two sentences!' to sarcastically highlight the brevity and perceived inadequacy of the Archive's previous responses. Describing the Archive as 'confused as to why I really want to know why my stuff got blocked' frames their communication as obtuse or uncaring, rather than simply stating the final, unhelpful response. This builds on the narrative of the Archive being uncooperative and opaque.
Original quote: “Now instead of me repeating myself for comedic effect, I’m just going to skip ahead and tell you that in total, I had to do this four times. After that, I finally got another response back. And this time, their reply was more than two sentences! And it said: “Please stop sending this request. We…”
Pins account deletion on IA spite — Emotional Button + Missing Context — Emotional Button (35/100)
At 3:34
The drawn-out 'Annnnddd' plus 'just delete' frames it as vindictive retaliation rather than a standard escalation step.
Why this score: By emphasizing the sudden total deletion and extra uploads lost, the speaker cues outrage before we know whether this matches their TOS or was an automated action. The emotional weight is doing the persuasive work while the actual policy context stays off-screen.
Original quote: “Annnnddd looks like they decided to just delete my entire account and all my uploads! Not just the PS2 demo post but the Ace Attorney one too.”
Claims 'never broke rules' as proof of unfairness — Confidence Mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (40/100)
At 3:52
Treats the initial lock (not deletion) as conclusive evidence that no rule was broken, ignoring possible investigation stages.
Why this score: The logic assumes IA either deletes immediately or not at all. Real moderation often uses temporary locks while reviewing, so the 'lock = no violation' premise doesn't hold without seeing the actual rule text or IA's later determination.
Original quote: “my post never broke their rules— (because if it did, my post would’ve been deleted at the start, not locked)— neither did my conduct outside the site”
Calls IA staff hypocrites — loaded language, no receipts shown — Loaded Language (35/100)
At 5:44
Instant character attack without showing the alleged hypocrisy yet — emotional button.
Why this score: The speaker jumps straight to a moral judgment ('hypocrites') before laying out the evidence. This framing primes the viewer to view the archive's actions as bad-faith rather than bureaucratic, shifting focus from the actual policy disagreement to the staff's supposed dishonesty.
Original quote: “The people running this site are hypocrites.”
Claims 'nearly every entry' is copyrighted — sweeping generalization, missing nuance — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:11
Blurs the line between public-domain scans, licensed collections, and actual infringement.
Why this score: Internet Archive hosts millions of pre-1928 books, government documents, openly-licensed works, and materials with permission. The blanket 'nearly every entry' framing collapses these categories into one incriminating bucket, making the archive look uniformly illegal when the actual mix is far more varied.
Original quote: “The hypocritical part is the fact that nearly every entry in their archives are made up of copyrighted materials. Books, news recordings, music records, games and more can easily be found on this site.”
False equivalence: my demos vs. major studio leaks — False Equivalence (45/100)
At 6:49
Sets up two very different situations as identical — indie demo vs. corporate IP — so the inconsistency looks outrageous.
Why this score: The speaker equates the takedown of a 20-year-old demo with the continued presence of leaked builds from Sony et al. These are legally distinct: one is abandoned material whose rights holder is unknown or inactive; the other is still-protected IP where the rights holder simply hasn’t acted yet. Framing them as interchangeable hides the difference in enforcement reality and invites the viewer to see selective persecution rather than selective enforcement. A neutral frame would acknowledge that rights holders choose when (or if) to enforce, not that the Archive applies a uniform rule.
Original quote: “So if the issue is copyright, I’m supposed to believe my game demos, (that haven’t been officially distributed anywhere in over 20 years), deserve to get taken down without any explanation, (despite not breaking any rules in their Terms of Service), but anonymous accounts with no public connection…”
Loaded language: ‘burning entries’ paints deletion as arson — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 7:26
Uses incendiary verb ‘burning’ to turn routine moderation into deliberate destruction, priming outrage.
Why this score: Calling removal ‘burning’ imports imagery of irreversible loss, even though the Archive routinely removes material for policy reasons. The rhetorical move collapses ‘we deleted a single upload’ into ‘we are torching our own collection,’ inviting the audience to treat every deletion as an existential threat to preservation. A neutral phrasing would be ‘removing entries’ or ‘enforcing policy,’ which lacks the emotional heat.
Original quote: “What are you guys collecting donations for? To keep your library up? What library are you maintaining when you’re burning entries people go out of their way to contribute to your library to help build up your reputation, for free, as the biggest online archive in the world?”
Straw man: assumes Archive will censor Stokes archive without evidence — Straw Man (20/100)
At 8:09
Poses a loaded hypothetical about editing Stokes’ tapes that no one has proposed, then attacks the Archive for it.
Why this score: The speaker invents a scenario—selective editing of Marion Stokes’ recordings—then challenges the Archive to disprove it. This is a classic straw-man setup: the burden is shifted onto the Archive to prove a negative about an action it hasn’t announced. A fair framing would ask what their stated digitization policy is, rather than presupposing malicious editing and demanding they defend themselves against a phantom plan.
Original quote: “Will all her tapes be digitally archived or will they pick-and-choose? And when do they digitize her tapes, will the full recordings be left intact or will certain news reports, old TV broadcasts, or whatever else they feel like be edited out before uploading the final product on their website?”
Pushes hypothetical ban as logical conclusion — straw man escalation — Straw Man (40/100)
At 8:30
Turns IA's enforcement inconsistency into an all-or-nothing ban threat that IA never stated.
Why this score: Speaker constructs an extreme outcome (full cancellation of Stokes' project) that IA has not proposed, then demands IA justify that extreme. This lets the speaker attack the harshest possible reading rather than engage with IA's actual, narrower rationale for removing the PS2 items.
Original quote: “If uploading old, lost or abandoned media is grounds for takedown (even though, for the THIRD time, it does not go against your TOS), and questioning it gets you permanently banned, shouldn’t that mean her project’s done for?”
Loaded language branding — rhetorical trap via institutional identity — Loaded Language (35/100)
At 8:47
Uses 'library/archive' as moral trump card to imply total archival duty.
Why this score: The speaker weaponizes the words 'library' and 'archive' to imply an absolute obligation to preserve everything. Real libraries constantly deaccession, refuse donations, and curate. Framing any refusal as betrayal of the institution's identity is a rhetorical shortcut that skips the practical questions of scope, copyright, and resources.
Original quote: “Why call yourself a library or archive if you’re not going to… archive things?”
Shifts from archiving to 'hiding' — loaded pivot via intent framing — Loaded Language (40/100)
At 8:58
Re-labels curation decisions as deliberate concealment to heighten suspicion.
Why this score: By swapping 'decide not to archive' with 'hide from public,' the speaker assigns sinister motives to ordinary curatorial choices. Without evidence that IA intends to suppress rather than simply decline to preserve, the loaded verb 'hide' steers audience reaction before facts are examined.
Original quote: “And what’s the point of their archival project they’ve been boasting about in interviews and social media for years? What will they do with the footage they choose not to publish or take down from their library?”
Emotional button — frames cost as total loss regardless of outcome — Emotional Button (50/100)
At 9:13
Uses dollar amount to evoke waste without showing zero value delivered.
Why this score: The $16K figure is concrete and relatable, but the framing treats any partial or selective archiving as complete waste. In reality, even partial digitization or cataloging provides some public benefit. The emotional shortcut bypasses nuance about what portion of the collection has already been processed.
Original quote: “Either way, the $16K Stokes’ son paid to have those tapes sent to Internet Archive will have gone to waste.”
Cherry-picks timeline gap to imply mismanagement — missing full funding context — Cherry-Picked (45/100)
At 9:45
Highlights delay and funding contradiction while omitting IA's actual budget line items.
Why this score: The eight-year gap between receipt and start is striking, yet the speaker offers no breakdown of IA's overall budget allocation, competing projects, or legal hurdles that could explain the lag. By isolating the delay and the 'low on funds' quote, the framing suggests incompetence or bad faith without evidence that funds were misdirected rather than simply insufficient for this scale.
Original quote: “According to IA, they first got her tapes in 2013, but, also according to them, they’ve… just started archiving them in… 2021? But now they’re saying they can’t finish the archiving process because they’re “low on funds””
Volume game — big donation numbers vs small project cost creates outrage math — Volume Game (50/100)
At 9:58
Stacks raw totals without showing how much actually reached Stokes project.
Why this score: The $20-36M annual revenue figure is impressive, but the speaker never connects those aggregate dollars to the Stokes line-item. Without knowing how much of that money was earmarked for other collections, overhead, or legal defense, the juxtaposition of big income vs $2M project cost manufactures suspicion rather than demonstrating misallocation.
Original quote: “even though, as far back as I can see, they’ve been collecting between $20 and $36 million dollars per year via grants and donations, and in interviews they said the project would take $2 million dollars to complete while also admitting they had volunteers working on it 24/7…since… 2013?”
Explaining the delay in discussing the project's removal — setting the scene for frustration. — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:35
Just setting the context for why he's bringing this up now. Makes sense to address the 'why now?' question upfront.
Why this score: The speaker is preemptively addressing a common viewer question about the timing of his video. This is a straightforward, transparent way to frame the discussion, providing necessary context without any obvious rhetorical manipulation. It builds trust by acknowledging potential skepticism.
Original quote: “In case you guys were wondering, “well if this happened in 2025, why are you talking about it now almost a year later?” It’s because I was trying to get the issue resolved in the background.”
Emphasizing personal effort and loss — using emotional appeal to connect with the audience. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 10:56
Highlighting the 'hard work' and 'only thing left' frames the situation as a personal tragedy, not just a technical issue.
Why this score: By focusing on his personal investment ('really worked hard') and the tangible loss ('only thing I have left is this screenshot'), the speaker is pressing an emotional button. This framing encourages empathy from the audience, making them more likely to side with him against the Internet Archive. A neutral framing would simply state the project was removed and he has a screenshot, without the emotional language.
Original quote: “I really worked hard on this project and loved sharing it with you guys as long as I was able to. The only thing I have left to show for it is this screenshot I took around the time I first uploaded it.”
Highlighting community engagement and reach — implying the project's value and impact. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 11:04
Mentions 'more Favorites, comments, archivists' but no specific numbers. It's a 'volume game' without the volume.
Why this score: The speaker uses phrases like 'a lot more Favorites, comments' and mentions 'game archivists finding my post' to suggest significant community engagement and validation. While this might be true, the lack of specific numbers (e.g., 'it had X favorites, Y comments') makes it a form of 'volume game' framing without providing the actual volume. It implies widespread support without concrete evidence, leaving the viewer to imagine the scale. A more neutral framing would include specific metrics or acknowledge the lack thereof.
Original quote: “By the time it got locked down, it had a lot more Favorites, comments, and game archivists finding my post and adding it to other collections to get more reach, so thank you all for your interactions.”
Framing the deletion as a loss for the community — emphasizing future missed opportunities. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 11:17
This isn't just about his project; it's about 'you guys' missing out on future content. Classic emotional appeal.
Why this score: The speaker frames the deletion not just as a personal setback but as a loss for the entire community ('I won’t be able to share any of the other demo discs I came across over the years... for you guys to play and experience'). This uses an emotional button by making the audience feel personally deprived of future content due to the Internet Archive's actions. It shifts the blame and magnifies the perceived negative impact beyond just the existing project.
Original quote: “What makes this situation worse is I won’t be able to share any of the other demo discs I came across over the years. Like I said in my project announcement video, my collection was incomplete, and as I got more discs, I would add them to the archive for you guys to play and experience for…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →