Who Really Controls the Internet?
Credibility score: 32/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "Who Really Controls the Internet?" and rated it 32/100 for credibility (a BS score of 68/100 — low credibility), on 2026-06-29. Its weakest claim — "Claims activists "manufacture conspiracies" and call people "Nazi" for not complying, using a straw man." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 13 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 13 claims analyzed: 7 scored under 40, 6 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Claims we're experiencing the "highest and biggest level of censorship" between 2014-2024, based on personal experience. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:00
Declaring "highest and biggest level of censorship" based on personal feeling isn't exactly a data-driven analysis, is it? 💀
Why this score: The speaker presents a subjective personal experience as a broad, definitive statement about the level of censorship. While personal experience is valid, framing it as the 'highest and biggest' without any objective metrics or comparison to historical periods (e.g., McCarthyism, wartime censorship) is a confidence mismatch. It's a strong claim based on a feeling, not evidence.
Original quote: “Hi, today I want to talk to you all about wokeness and where I think it came from. So, a lot of people don't really understand how all these things came together and how we experience probably the highest and the biggest level of censorship that at least I've experienced in my lifetime between the…”
Speaker frames internet control as an "unholy trinity" of media, capitalism, and activism. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
Calling it an "unholy trinity" right off the bat? That's not analysis, that's setting the mood for a conspiracy theory. 😈
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, negative language like 'unholy trinity' and 'mentally ill activism' to immediately establish a villain and a dramatic narrative, rather than presenting a neutral, evidence-based premise. This primes the audience to view the subsequent discussion through a lens of suspicion and moral judgment.
Original quote: “the unholy trinity between ideologically captured media, uh, bad faith capitalism and mentally ill activism. And these things put together all created an apparatus that I want to construct and then deconstruct and talk to you all about how it actually maintained power and how it manifested and…”
Attributing 'woke era' origins to 2010-2014, not COVID. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:30
Calling the 'woke era' a 'disease' and pinpointing its start to 2010-2014 with such certainty is a bold take. Like, where's the diagnostic report? 🦠
Why this score: The speaker confidently asserts a specific origin period (2010-2014) for the 'woke era' and labels it a 'disease,' contrasting it with the 'fever pitch' of COVID. This is a highly subjective interpretation of social and cultural shifts, presented as a definitive historical fact without any supporting evidence or methodology for defining 'woke' or its onset. It's a strong opinion stated as an objective truth.
Original quote: “Because a lot of people falsely attribute the woke era to something that was happening during COVID, which I think was the fever pitch, but it wasn't the entire disease. The disease actually started between 2010 and 2014.”
Brand friendly means left-leaning, and companies cowtow to this group because they're good at 'institutional capture' — not because they're the majority. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:30
Connects 'brand friendly' to 'left-leaning' and 'institutional capture' with zero actual evidence. Just vibes and a big leap. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker asserts that 'brand friendly' almost always means 'agnostic to politics or left-leaning' and that companies 'cowtow' to this group due to 'institutional capture.' This is presented as a definitive explanation without any data, examples, or studies to back up the claim that this is the primary or sole reason for corporate behavior. It's a confident assertion of a complex social and business dynamic without supporting evidence.
Original quote: “And I think that really if you take a step back, think about the term brand friendly. Think about that term brand friendly. What does brand friendly almost always mean? That means at least something that is either agnostic to politics or leftistleaning. And I think that really kind of gives away…”
Claims advertisers changed rules for money, not conscience, with 'zero' probability of other reasons. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:30
Declares the probability is 'zero' that companies grew a conscience. That's a bold claim for something so subjective. 💀
Why this score: The speaker asserts with absolute certainty ('zero') that companies changed rules solely for advertising money, dismissing any possibility of evolving social responsibility or genuine ethical shifts. It's a confident declaration without evidence to back up the 'zero' probability.
Original quote: “Advertisers changed. What do you think the probability is that every single company suddenly grew a conscience and wanted to make all these different sores against the rules at ironically the same time that they all got a bunch of money for advertising? What do you think the odds of that are? Well,…”
Claims activists "manufacture conspiracies" and call people "Nazi" for not complying, using a straw man. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 8:30
Suggesting that disagreeing automatically makes you a 'Nazi' is a bit of a leap — simplifying complex arguments into a cartoon villain 🤡.
Why this score: The speaker creates an exaggerated and easily refutable version of the 'activist' argument (that any disagreement leads to being called a Nazi) and then attacks this simplified version. This avoids engaging with the actual nuances of activist criticisms or the reasons behind certain labels.
Original quote: “because if you attract negative attention from them by not doing what they want then they manufacture conspiracies. They try to create negative sentiment about you and then they call you like I mean nowadays right I mean how many people are being called a Nazi it's like oh yeah I'm not seeing your…”
Compares pride, Palestine, and trans flags to 'coexist bumper stickers' as mere social accessories. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 10:30
Lumping all advocacy flags with 'coexist bumper stickers' as just 'social accessories' is a wild oversimplification. Some of those flags represent actual movements, not just vibes. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker equates various identity and political flags (Pride, Palestine, Trans) with 'coexist bumper stickers,' claiming they are used merely as 'social accessories' to signal being a 'good person,' rather than 'actual pieces of advocacy.' This creates a false equivalence by dismissing the potentially deep personal and political significance of these symbols for many, reducing them all to superficial signaling without acknowledging their diverse contexts and meanings.
Original quote: “They're adopting social causes as social accessories. They're using their pride flags, their Palestine flags, and their trans flags are like their coexist bumper stickers. They're not using these as actual pieces of advocacy. They're using them as social accessories so they can signal to other…”
Claims Elon Musk's Twitter purchase 'unlocked everybody's freedom of speech' and shifted discourse from gender to 'which race is the best race.' — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 12:30
Comparing 'not being able to say there are two genders' to 'only talking about which race is the best race' is a wild, unhinged pivot. That's not a shift, that's a fever dream. 💀
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by suggesting that the discourse shifted directly from one extreme (not being able to discuss gender) to another (only discussing racial superiority) as a direct result of Elon Musk's actions. This ignores the vast spectrum of conversations and topics that exist on social media and implies a direct, causal, and extreme shift that is not supported by evidence. It's a dramatic oversimplification and a misrepresentation of the complexity of online discourse.
Original quote: “Elon Musk buying Twitter was like a crack in the dam that unlocked basically everybody's freedom of speech. And you went from not being able to say that there were two genders to only being talking about which race is the best race.”
Censorship is about money, not social justice, citing 4chan and Twitter as examples. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 14:30
Comparing 4chan to Twitter/Rumble as if they're all the same kind of 'non-ad-based' platform is a stretch. One's a cesspool, the others are just less strict on moderation. 💀
Why this score: The speaker lumps 4chan, Twitter, and Rumble together as examples of platforms where 'crazy things' are said because they aren't 'run based off of advertising.' This creates a false equivalence. Twitter and Rumble *do* rely on advertising, even if their content moderation policies differ from, say, Facebook or YouTube. 4chan is a different beast entirely, known for its anonymity and lack of moderation, which is not comparable to the business models of Twitter or Rumble.
Original quote: “It's actually just making money. And if it wasn't for capitalism, you'd still have people spamming the n-word all the time. And how do I know that? Well, it's because every single website that isn't run based off of advertising and doesn't, you know, depend on it, like 4chan, uh, you know, Twitter…”
Framing institutional capture as a 'nuclear weapon' where you either use it or it's used against you ☢️ — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 16:30
Comparing 'institutional capture' to a nuclear weapon with only two options: use it or be destroyed. That's a false dilemma, baby! 💥
Why this score: The speaker presents a stark 'either/or' scenario regarding 'institutional capture,' likening it to a 'nuclear weapon' where one must either 'use it or it being used against you.' This creates a false dilemma by implying there are only two possible courses of action, ignoring any potential alternatives like resisting such tactics, building independent institutions, or seeking common ground. It's designed to push a specific, aggressive strategy by eliminating other perceived options.
Original quote: “You cannot afford to not play the game. I think that if you want to control and you want to not have institutional capture, you have to engage in institutional capture. There is not a world where this weapon and this tool was not used. There's only a weapon where it's either you using it or it…”
Blames "bad faith, unintelligent, uninformed capitalism" by the "lowest common denominator" for societal issues. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 18:30
He's throwing around "bad faith" and "lowest common denominator" like they're scientific terms — pure emotional appeal, no specifics. 🎭
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, subjective terms like 'bad faith,' 'unintelligent,' 'uninformed,' and 'lowest common denominator' to describe a type of capitalism and the people behind it. This language is designed to evoke a strong negative emotional response rather than provide a clear, objective analysis of economic systems or specific actors. It's a classic move to rally an audience against an ill-defined 'enemy.'
Original quote: “And it's not just by capitalism. I'm a big capitalism enjoyer. But I would say it is by bad faith unintelligent uninformed capitalism that is being done by the lowest common denominator. And those are the people that you really should be looking at as your enemy. Those are your enemies because…”
You can't abstain, because if you don't act, 'they' will act against you — a classic false dilemma. ⚔️ — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 20:30
Presents only two options: act or be acted upon. — Ignores any middle ground or nuance. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker creates a false dilemma by asserting that one cannot simply abstain or disagree without consequence, claiming 'If you don't do it, they will do it to you.' This frames the situation as an 'either/or' scenario, ignoring other potential responses or the possibility of passive resistance having its own impact, or that 'they' might not even exist or care.
Original quote: “This isn't a world where you can just abstain. This isn't a world where you can just say, "Well, I'm just simply not going to do that because I don't agree with that. If you don't do it, they will do it to you."”
Presenting a false dilemma: act or be acted upon — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 20:30
This 'do it or it'll be done to you' framing is classic false dilemma — like there are only two options in the universe 💀
Why this score: The speaker creates a stark 'us vs. them' scenario, implying that if you don't actively engage in their prescribed way ('do it'), then 'they' (presumably the opposition) will inevitably impose their will upon you ('do it to you'). This ignores a spectrum of other possible actions, outcomes, or compromises, presenting only two extreme choices.
Original quote: “If you don't do it, they will
do it to you.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →