They're trying to destroy his life..
Credibility score: 49/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "They're trying to destroy his life.." and rated it 49/100 for credibility (a BS score of 51/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-16. Its weakest claim — "Claims he's representing Ben's 'estate' against the US as corporations" — scored 5/100 and was flagged as bs. 17 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay millions for promoting apps that cause mental health issues — Dubious (35/100)
No actual verdict named, no case number, no date — just vibes and a Morgan & Morgan ad 💀
Claims he never pushed for new laws, just proper enforcement of existing ones — Opinion (50/100)
Classic 'I'm not asking for new rules' while literally describing how the old ones should crush people 💀
Describes disorderly conduct statute as very broad and applicable here — OK (65/100)
The statute text he read is real — the 'serves no legitimate purpose' bit is genuinely that vague on paper
Says US has always had laws against 'acting like an animal in public' — Dubious (40/100)
Bro really said 'acting like an animal' is a crime — that's not a legal standard, that's just his feelings 😭
Claims disorderly conduct is very common and covers unreasonable noise and fighting — Solid (80/100)
Finally something accurate — disorderly conduct really is one of the most used misdemeanor charges across the US
Wants a tyrant to jail people for using phone speakers in public — Opinion (50/100)
Bro literally said he wants a dictator who throws you in jail for a month over Bluetooth speakers 💀
Praises court for allowing digital appearance in this case — Opinion (50/100)
Calling it "very good" that the court let him appear online — basic tech that most places figured out years ago
Lesser charges are separate from the RICO case — OK (60/100)
Technically true right now — but the next 20 seconds literally explain how those "separate" charges can still feed the RICO 🔥
Lesser charges can become foundation for bigger RICO charges — Opinion (50/100)
Classic prosecutor move and everyone in the comments is nodding like it's obvious 💀
Prosecutors might try to trick defendants — Opinion (50/100)
No shit — that's literally their job description 😭
Speaker claims he already considered not talking to Ben — Opinion (50/100)
Yeah we heard you the first time, bro — no need to pat yourself on the back for basic decency 💀
Claims July 6 hearing will be simple with little controversy — Opinion (50/100)
Calling a court hearing 'very simple' when someone's facing serious charges is some next-level optimism 😭
Claims Ben faces very serious charges requiring a lawyer — Opinion (50/100)
Finally some actual sense — telling someone facing charges to get a lawyer isn't exactly a hot take though 🤷♂️
Claims he's representing Ben's 'estate' against the US as corporations — BS (5/100)
Sovereign citizen word salad — no legal system recognizes 'corporation of the United States' bullshit 💀
Wants 'the same energy' as the people suing Ben over Lego — Opinion (50/100)
Wants the same obsessive legal harassment energy directed at Lego thieves — that's not the flex he thinks it is 😭
Doesn't care if Ben made a 'technical mistake' — only cares who's right — Opinion (50/100)
Dismisses legal technicalities as irrelevant — that's how you end up in actual legal trouble 🧱
Calls this the biggest corporate suicide ever, then admits it's not — Opinion (50/100)
Bro said 'biggest corporate suicide ever' then immediately walked it back — pick a lane 💀
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →