So I Went On The Dark Web.
Credibility score: 59/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "So I Went On The Dark Web." and rated it 59/100 for credibility (a BS score of 41/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-17. Its weakest claim — "Claims '3 minutes of intense Reddit research' found the 'safest way in'." — scored 45/100 and was flagged as confidence mismatch. 22 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 22 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 12 between 40 and 69, and 10 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Speaker admits total ignorance before diving into the dark web. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:02
He's upfront about having no clue — a rare moment of honesty before the inevitable chaos. I appreciate the transparency. 😈
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states his lack of experience and knowledge regarding the dark web, setting a clear expectation for his amateur exploration. This is a straightforward admission, not a rhetorical trick.
Original quote: “I got to be honest, I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing. I've never been to
the dark web, but I'm incredibly curious to see what is actually down there.”
Claims '3 minutes of intense Reddit research' found the 'safest way in'. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:11
Three minutes on Reddit for 'safest way in' to the dark web? That's not research, mortal — that's a prayer with a search bar. 💀
Why this score: The speaker's claim of finding the 'safest way in' to the dark web after 'exactly 3 minutes of intense Reddit research' is a massive overstatement. The dark web is notoriously risky, and such minimal, informal research is highly unlikely to yield a truly 'safe' method, especially for a novice. The confidence expressed doesn't match the trivial effort.
Original quote: “So,
I did exactly 3 minutes of intense Reddit research, and I think I found the
safest way in.”
Calling Tails 'a little different' — that's an understatement, isn't it? — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:32
He calls Tails 'a little different' — it's designed for extreme privacy and anonymity. That's not 'a little' different; it's a whole other beast. 😈
Why this score: The speaker downplays the significant differences of Tails OS, which is specifically engineered for privacy and anonymity, often used for sensitive operations. Calling it 'a little different' minimizes its unique and critical features, setting a casual tone for a serious tool.
Original quote: “Boom. So, basically, Tails is an operating system, but it's a little
different than your normal one.”
Setting up a 'disappearing act' for the OS — as if that's the only way to be safe. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:54
He's explaining a core security feature of Tails OS. No tricks here, just how it works. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker accurately describes a key feature of Tails OS: its ephemeral nature, where all data is wiped upon shutdown. This is a standard and crucial security measure for anonymity and privacy, not a rhetorical trick.
Original quote: “Now, this is the important part. We are
not going to attach any storage to this computer, which means the second we shut
it down, it's gone, completely wiped.”
Claiming standard search engines 'so index' dark websites — that's not how it works, darling. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:49
He says standard search engines 'so index' dark websites, implying they do. They don't. That's why it's the 'dark' web. 💀
Why this score: The speaker states that standard search engines 'so index' dark websites, which is fundamentally incorrect. The dark web (specifically .onion sites) is intentionally not indexed by conventional search engines like Google, which is a core aspect of its design and obscurity. This shows a misunderstanding of how the dark web operates.
Original quote: “Now, there is one last thing we need to do. Apparently, you can't just Google
things down here because the standard search engines so index dark websites.”
Declaring 'officially off the grid' after a few clicks — that's not how you disappear, mortal. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:06
He says 'officially off the grid' after setting up a VM and Tor. That's not 'off the grid'; that's just using a browser. 😈
Why this score: The speaker confidently declares himself 'officially off the grid' after configuring a virtual machine with Tails OS and connecting to Tor. While these tools enhance anonymity, true 'off the grid' status involves far more comprehensive measures and a deeper understanding of operational security. This statement overstates the level of anonymity achieved with just a few steps.
Original quote: “All right, now we are officially
off the grid. I got to be honest, I'm a little bit scared.”
Assuming iPhones are stolen based on quantity — a leap of logic. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:33
He's 'pretty sure' they're stolen just because someone's buying a lot. That's not evidence, that's just a hunch. 💀
Why this score: The speaker makes a confident assertion ('pretty sure') about the iPhones being stolen based solely on the quantity being purchased. While it might be suspicious, there's no actual evidence presented to support this claim, making it an assumption rather than a fact. It's a common leap people make, but it's still a leap.
Original quote: “I'm pretty sure these are stolen. Like, who the hell buys six or seven iPhones”
Dismissing Instagram hacking service as fake based on price — a personal opinion. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:47
He says 'no way this is real' because he 'doesn't think' it's possible for $200. His personal belief isn't proof. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker confidently dismisses the Instagram hacking service as 'not real' based on his personal opinion that 'you can't hack someone's Instagram for $200'. This is a subjective assessment of value and feasibility, not a factual refutation. The dark web is full of scams, but also actual illicit services, and the price point alone isn't definitive proof of authenticity or fakery.
Original quote: “Hacking, Instagram hacking service. No way this is real. I mean, I don't think you can hack someone's Instagram for $200.”
Judging an AK-47 as fake because it 'looks too clean' — a visual bias. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 3:07
He's calling an AK-47 fake because it 'looks too clean.' As if weapons on the dark web are always rusty. That's not how this works. 💀
Why this score: The speaker judges the AK-47 to be 'fake' because it 'looks way too clean.' This is a subjective visual assessment, implying that illicit items should appear worn or dirty. The appearance of an item, especially in a photo, is not reliable evidence of its authenticity or lack thereof, particularly when dealing with potentially new or well-maintained items being sold illegally.
Original quote: “A home. Is it me or does it look fake? It looks way too clean. No? $600.”
Questioning cigarette price, assuming a 'special product' — a lack of context. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 3:55
He's baffled by the cigarette price, wondering if it's 'special.' He's missing the context of black market pricing and potential smuggling. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker questions the high price of 'Marlboro Gold' cigarettes, wondering if it's a 'special product.' This indicates a lack of understanding of how pricing works on the dark web for illicit goods, which often includes markups for risk, scarcity, and smuggling, rather than just the intrinsic value of the product itself. The price isn't necessarily about the product being 'special,' but about the illicit nature of the transaction.
Original quote: “Marlboro Gold, 100% genuine. No way cigarettes cost this much. Is this some kind of special product?”
Highlighting a money exchange offer — a straightforward observation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:00
He's just reading out the offer for counterfeit money. No spin, just the raw data. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is simply stating an offer he sees on the dark web: '200 20 euro bills for 190 dollars.' This is a direct observation of a listed item, without any additional framing, judgment, or rhetorical manipulation. It's a clear presentation of information found on the site.
Original quote: “200 20 euro bills for 190 dollars.”
Assuming all electronics are stolen based on low price — a confident generalization. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:05
He says 'probably stolen' about *all* electronics just because one GPU is cheap. That's a broad brush, even for the dark web. 💀
Why this score: The speaker generalizes that 'all of these electronics are probably stolen' immediately after seeing a low price for a specific item (GeForce RTX 3080 for $340). While it's a reasonable suspicion on the dark web, stating 'all' are 'probably' stolen is a confident generalization without specific evidence for every item, based on an inference from one data point.
Original quote: “All of these electronics are probably stolen. GeForce RTX 3080 for 340 dollars.”
RPG-7D for $1,680 with a gift — a dark web shopping spree. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:30
He's just reading the price of a weapon on the dark web. Nothing tricky, just grim reality. 💀
Why this score: The speaker is simply relaying information seen on screen, describing the price and item as presented on the dark web interface. No rhetorical framing is being used here, just a straightforward observation of the content.
Original quote: “web. No way. RPG-7D, several sizes of over caliber, 1,680
dollars. Oh, and you also get a gift. That's nice.”
Defining 'stinger' as a man-portable air defense system. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:35
He's just asking what a 'stinger' is and then reading the definition. Straightforward. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is asking for clarification on a term and then providing its definition, likely from an on-screen description or a quick search. This is a simple informational exchange without any manipulative framing.
Original quote: “Take the safety cap off and go >> Okay, what the hell is a stinger?
Stinger is a man-portable air defense system. That looks pretty advanced.”
Questioning the term 'confabulation' in a chat prompt. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:44
He's just reacting to a weird word in a chat prompt. It's a fair question, mortals. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is reacting to an unusual word ('confabulation') encountered in a chat interface. This is a genuine query about vocabulary, not a rhetorical device or a claim being framed in a specific way.
Original quote: “Let's search for chats. "Enter your nickname to take part of this
confabulation." What the [ __ ] is a confabulation?”
Doubting a chat user's claim of being a first-time dark web user. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 5:41
He's calling out a chat user's claim as dubious, but it's just a gut feeling. No proof, just vibes. 💀
Why this score: The speaker expresses skepticism about another user's claim of being new to the dark web. While this is a personal opinion, it's presented with a degree of certainty ('I don't know if I exactly believe that') without any specific evidence or reasoning to back up the doubt, making it a confidence mismatch.
Original quote: “Okay, so it says this is his first time on the dark web, but I don't know if I
exactly believe that.”
Speaker finds normal cooking posts on the dark web, stating not everything is illegal. 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:30
He's right, the dark web isn't just for illicit dealings. It's a network, not a crime scene. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker correctly points out that the dark web, while often associated with illegal activities, also hosts legitimate content and services. It's just an encrypted network, not inherently evil. I've seen worse on the surface web, believe me. 😈
Original quote: “Hello, what's up? Anybody online? What do you guys do? Are
you from Mars or Jupiter? Hello. What is that username? I'm not staying there.
What? I'm just going to skip that guy. I'm blazing. Blazing on what? Weird,
lol. Why are you here? Oh my god. Let's try something wholesome
for once. Let's try…”
Speaker finds a tutorial on setting up a dark web website, calling it 'pretty reasonable.' 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 7:03
A tutorial for setting up a website is just information. Nothing inherently sinister about that. 💀
Why this score: The speaker observes a tutorial for creating a dark web site. This is a straightforward description of content found, not a claim about its legality or morality. It's just a how-to guide, like any other. The tools are neutral; it's the intent that matters. 🔥
Original quote: “Setting up a
dark website. On this page I describe the main steps to set up a website on
the dark web. Oh, so this is basically a tutorial how you can set up your own
website. I mean, it seems pretty reasonable.”
Speaker finds 'Amazon black market' selling AirPods and human growth hormone, listing its purported benefits. 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 7:16
He's just describing what he's seeing. The dark web is indeed a marketplace for such things. 💀
Why this score: The speaker is merely narrating what he sees on a dark web marketplace, including AirPods and human growth hormone (HGH) with its claimed benefits. This is a factual observation of the site's content, not an endorsement or a claim about the product's efficacy. I've seen mortals fall for far worse. 🔥
Original quote: “Okay,
so this is Amazon black market. They're selling AirPods. I mean, all of these
that I have no idea what these are. Human growth hormone. Human growth
hormone will promote muscle building while also helping your body burn fat.
It also has anti-aging properties due to HGH stimulating collagen…”
Speaker finds a Beretta ARX 160 for sale with reviews, including one noting missing bullets. 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 7:42
He's just reading the reviews on a dark web gun listing. It's a direct observation. 💀
Why this score: The speaker is describing a listing for a Beretta ARX 160 on the dark web, including user reviews. One review mentions 'a few bullets were missing.' This is a direct report of content found, not a claim being made by the speaker. It's a glimpse into the bizarre commerce of the underworld. 🔥
Original quote: “Okay, Beretta ARX 160. Oh, and it has quite a lot of reviews. When I was a
kid, my father had Beretta, so I bought a new one, and it's the same as when I
was a kid. Thank you. Hash shipping. Perfect. Gun is okay, but a few bullets
were missing. This is not for everybody. Really strong machine.…”
Speaker finds a 'Bitcoin miner coin station' running on a PlayStation, claiming it made over 100 euros in less than a day. 😈 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 8:03
A PlayStation as a Bitcoin miner making 100 euros a day? That's a bold claim for a console not designed for it. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker expresses surprise at a 'Bitcoin miner coin station' supposedly running on a PlayStation and then quotes a user review claiming 'over 100 euros' in less than a day. While it's possible to mine crypto on various hardware, a PlayStation's architecture is not optimized for efficient Bitcoin mining, and generating 100 euros daily from it is highly improbable, especially with current Bitcoin mining difficulty and energy costs. The claim of such high returns from a PlayStation miner is a massive overstatement, likely a scam or gross exaggeration. I've seen mortals fall for 'get rich…
Original quote: “Bitcoin miner coin station. Wait,
am I seeing this correctly? This runs on a PlayStation. Okay, that's interesting.
When I show this to my friends, they won't believe their eyes. My friend
asked me, "What are you doing?" "I'm making money on PlayStation."
Update, it's running. It's not the end of…”
Claiming "legit reviews" and "happy with everything" from the dark web. That's a sales pitch, not a review. 😈 — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 8:31
He's reading "reviews" that sound like a commercial for illegal goods. This isn't an analysis; it's an infomercial for the underworld. 💀
Why this score: The speaker is presenting what he calls 'reviews' from the dark web, but the language used ('new laptop, new phone, new apartment, new money') is overtly promotional and lacks any critical assessment. It's designed to entice, not inform, about the risks or realities of buying illicit items. It's a classic sales tactic, disguised as user testimony.
Original quote: “not sure if these are all legit reviews, but it seems like people are actually loving it. Look at that, this one has a skin on it. Working and pretty as [ __ ] Love this vendor. Where are my bullets? Full driver's license USA. Back and front selfie. Well, I got it, and I'm happy with everything…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →