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.
Of 17 claims analyzed: 2 scored under 40, 14 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay millions for promoting apps that cause mental health issues — Dubious (35/100)
At 0:30
No actual verdict named, no case number, no date — just vibes and a Morgan & Morgan ad 💀
Why this score: No verifiable details provided for this supposed "historic verdict."
- Speaker gives zero court name, case number, or payout amount
- Immediately pivots to a personal injury lawyer ad asking viewers to scan a QR code
- Real Meta/YouTube litigation exists but nothing matches this description in current records
Original quote: “Recently, a jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay millions for their shows and promoting. I didn't realize I was in the way. They knew their apps could contribute to anxiety, depression, and body image issues, but did not share those risks while prioritizing profits. recent historic verdict…”
Claims he never pushed for new laws, just proper enforcement of existing ones — Opinion (50/100)
At 2:30
Classic 'I'm not asking for new rules' while literally describing how the old ones should crush people 💀
Why this score: Subjective framing.
- No way to verify someone's internal advocacy history
- The distinction between 'new rules' and 'aggressive enforcement' is often meaningless in practice
Original quote: “I have never advocated for them to create any new rules. All I want is for them to apply the existing rules in the right way”
Describes disorderly conduct statute as very broad and applicable here — OK (65/100)
At 2:40
The statute text he read is real — the 'serves no legitimate purpose' bit is genuinely that vague on paper
Why this score: Statute language is accurate.
- Disorderly conduct laws in many US states use broad language like this
- 'No legitimate purpose' and 'public annoyance' clauses exist in actual codes
- Whether it applies to the specific situation is a separate legal question
Original quote: “think they can probably dig in under disorderly conduct and find something... refusing to comply with a lawful order of the police to move from a public place or an official meeting to knowingly create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose”
Says US has always had laws against 'acting like an animal in public' — Dubious (40/100)
At 2:55
Bro really said 'acting like an animal' is a crime — that's not a legal standard, that's just his feelings 😭
Why this score: No such crime exists.
- US law doesn't have a charge called 'acting like an animal'
- Disorderly conduct requires specific elements (noise, fighting, obstruction, etc.)
- The phrase is rhetorical, not statutory
Original quote: “It's very funny because one of the things when I covered uh Vatitali in the Philippines and Johnny Somali is they said they didn't have that the US doesn't have any laws for... Acting like an animal in public has been against the law forever”
Claims disorderly conduct is very common and covers unreasonable noise and fighting — Solid (80/100)
At 3:10
Finally something accurate — disorderly conduct really is one of the most used misdemeanor charges across the US
Why this score: This part checks out.
- Disorderly conduct is among the most frequently filed misdemeanors in many jurisdictions
- Elements like unreasonable noise and threatening behavior are standard in state statutes
- Goddammit they're right about the prevalence
Original quote: “It's just that for some reason we've decided to accept it... this is indeed one disorderly conduct in the US. very very very common uh that has this as an element... to engage in fighting or any violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior, to make unreasonable noises”
Wants a tyrant to jail people for using phone speakers in public — Opinion (50/100)
At 5:05
Bro literally said he wants a dictator who throws you in jail for a month over Bluetooth speakers 💀
Why this score: Pure opinion on desired enforcement. Key points:
- Speaker is explicitly calling for a "tyrant" to apply laws harshly
- No factual claim being made about current law
- This is a stated preference for authoritarian punishment, not a legal analysis
Original quote: “music on public speakers in public transport jail. See, I told you guys like I if all I want is I want a tyrant that will do that will apply these laws to Oh, you have your Bluetooth speaker in the subway. Wait, what do you mean? You're at the you're at a waiting room and you're you're on the phone…”
Praises court for allowing digital appearance in this case — Opinion (50/100)
At 5:42
Calling it "very good" that the court let him appear online — basic tech that most places figured out years ago
Why this score: Subjective praise for routine procedure. Key points:
- Many courts adopted remote appearances during and after 2020
- No evidence provided that this court is unusually progressive
- Speaker frames normal digital access as noteworthy progress
Original quote: “So, very good. They're allowing him to do things digitally. A lot of courouses are still uh not up to date when it comes to digital and working online. So, good for them though, letting Ben to do things online.”
Lesser charges are separate from the RICO case — OK (60/100)
At 6:30
Technically true right now — but the next 20 seconds literally explain how those "separate" charges can still feed the RICO 🔥
Why this score: Technically accurate at this exact moment in the hearing.
- The quoted charges are only trespass and disorderly conduct
- RICO is a separate, larger case not yet being addressed
- However, the speakers immediately note these lesser charges could still be used to build the bigger case
Original quote: “this is for the very specific charges of trespass and uh disorderly conduct, this is not necessarily for the RICO case”
Lesser charges can become foundation for bigger RICO charges — Opinion (50/100)
At 6:40
Classic prosecutor move and everyone in the comments is nodding like it's obvious 💀
Why this score: Legal strategy opinion, not a factual prediction.
- Prosecutors routinely use smaller convictions to leverage larger ones
- No guarantee it will work here, but the tactic itself is real
- Commenters immediately recognize and agree with this point
Original quote: “if you can get him on these lesser charges, you can use the lesser charges as a foundation to build bigger charges”
Prosecutors might try to trick defendants — Opinion (50/100)
At 7:05
No shit — that's literally their job description 😭
Why this score: Basic adversarial system fact presented as revelation.
- Prosecutors represent the state, not the defendant
- Defense attorneys exist specifically because of this conflict
- Stating the obvious doesn't make it less true
Original quote: “You got to be careful what you say to the prosecutor because, you know, they're not always looking out for your best interest as the defendant”
Speaker claims he already considered not talking to Ben — Opinion (50/100)
At 9:08
Yeah we heard you the first time, bro — no need to pat yourself on the back for basic decency 💀
Why this score: Pure opinion on his own thought process. No external evidence exists to verify or refute what he privately considered.
Original quote: “No, I already thought of that.”
Claims July 6 hearing will be simple with little controversy — Opinion (50/100)
At 9:13
Calling a court hearing 'very simple' when someone's facing serious charges is some next-level optimism 😭
Why this score: Speculative opinion about future proceedings. Court outcomes are inherently unpredictable regardless of how straightforward they appear beforehand.
Original quote: “So boom, there you go. You have it. They have it there to see him on July 6. So in this, it literally seems very simple. There's not much controversial we're going to have coming up this hearing on July 6th.”
Claims Ben faces very serious charges requiring a lawyer — Opinion (50/100)
At 9:19
Finally some actual sense — telling someone facing charges to get a lawyer isn't exactly a hot take though 🤷♂️
Why this score: Legal opinion based on general principles. The characterization of charges as 'very serious' remains subjective without specific case details.
Original quote: “But what is true and turning to my judgment, what is true is Ben needs to lawyer up for the trial. say is fine at certain instances and maybe for the very very basics here to come in and make an initial plea. He definitely should be lawyering up at this point to fight these charges, to fight these…”
Claims he's representing Ben's 'estate' against the US as corporations — BS (5/100)
At 10:30
Sovereign citizen word salad — no legal system recognizes 'corporation of the United States' bullshit 💀
Why this score: Classic sovereign citizen nonsense.
- Courts have repeatedly rejected these exact 'corporate vs. natural person' arguments as frivolous
- No such legal framework exists where individuals sue 'the corporation of the United States'
- This is the same pseudolaw that gets people sanctioned and laughed out of court
Original quote: “I'm representing the estate the capital of Ben Schneider and uh you know the the state of there and uh this is the corporation uh against the corporation of the United States of America”
Wants 'the same energy' as the people suing Ben over Lego — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:52
Wants the same obsessive legal harassment energy directed at Lego thieves — that's not the flex he thinks it is 😭
Why this score: Pure opinion on tactics.
- He's openly wishing for more aggressive vigilante-style legal attacks
- Whether that's 'detrimental' depends on your view of the underlying case
- No factual claim to evaluate here
Original quote: “This is the way. By the way, I just wish that we had this same energy. I wish we had the same energy that these [__] retards have because they are so detrimental and so problematic”
Doesn't care if Ben made a 'technical mistake' — only cares who's right — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:59
Dismisses legal technicalities as irrelevant — that's how you end up in actual legal trouble 🧱
Why this score: Legal reality check.
- Technical mistakes in law often determine who wins, regardless of 'who's right'
- Courts don't care about moral rightness when procedure and evidence matter
- This attitude is exactly why people end up representing their own 'estate' against the US corporation
Original quote: “He's an idiot for enabling them, Zach. No, he's not an idiot. he's trying to do. I don't care if he made a technical mistake. I don't care about that. I care about who's right and who's wrong. I don't give a [__] about like, oh, well, the technician”
Calls this the biggest corporate suicide ever, then admits it's not — Opinion (50/100)
At 12:30
Bro said 'biggest corporate suicide ever' then immediately walked it back — pick a lane 💀
Why this score: Classic contradiction.
- First labels it the biggest corporate suicide he's seen
- Then says 'it's definitely not'
- Walks back to 'not a good one' without defining what makes it bad
Original quote: “biggest case of corporate suicide I've ever seen. It's definitely not. But like it it's not a good one. I'll tell you that.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →