Everyone is talking about this..
Credibility score: 47/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Everyone is talking about this.." and rated it 47/100 for credibility (a BS score of 53/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-07-01. Its weakest claim — "Contradicting the previous claim with a direct counter-example." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 7 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 7 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 5 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a highlight reel preview of a viral post and a 'rabbit hole' — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
Starting with a 'mega viral' tease and 'insane rabbit hole' — setting the stage for drama, not facts 🍿
Why this score: The speaker is using highly charged, attention-grabbing language to introduce the topic, hinting at controversy and intrigue without providing specific details. It's a classic hook to keep viewers watching, focusing on the emotional impact rather than factual claims.
Original quote: “Remember the person that said that the most vile [ __ ] about you, they're going mega viral. Insane rabbit hole that was community noted. Let me see this. So,”
Connects a post with 8.5 million views to a death 6 days later — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:06
Jumping from '8.5 million views' to 'died 6 days later' without explaining the connection. That's a leap of faith, not logic 🚩
Why this score: The speaker implies a causal link between the viral post and the person's death by placing them in immediate succession. This creates a strong emotional impact, but without further context, it's impossible to know if the post had any direct bearing on the death or if it's merely a coincidental timeline. It's a classic 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy in the making.
Original quote: “this post has 8.5 million views. He died 6 days later. So, this is one of these”
Speaker claims others are making 'fanfiction' about them killing their mom, then offers 'personal info' — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:11
Accusing people of 'fanfiction' about killing his mom, then immediately offering 'personal info' — a quick emotional rollercoaster 🎢
Why this score: The speaker uses a highly emotional and provocative claim ('killed my mom') to elicit a strong reaction from the audience, framing themselves as a victim of baseless rumors. Immediately following this, they pivot to offering 'personal info,' which can be seen as an attempt to build trust or sympathy, or to control the narrative by providing their own version of events after a dramatic setup. It's a classic move to engage the audience emotionally.
Original quote: “freaks that keeps making up fanfiction about how I killed my mom. Would you like some more personal info about my life? I'm a pretty open book. So, this”
Shares a personal text exchange about their dad starting chemo, prioritizing family over streaming — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:20
Showing a genuine text about a parent's chemo and prioritizing family. That's just real life, no tricks here ❤️
Why this score: The speaker is sharing a very personal and vulnerable moment, a text exchange about their father's health. The content of the message itself, particularly the line 'streaming right now isn't important,' conveys a genuine human sentiment of prioritizing family well-being over professional obligations. This appears to be a straightforward sharing of personal experience without any obvious rhetorical manipulation.
Original quote: “is a message with this person's dad. Chemo started yesterday. How are you feeling so far? So far, not bad. Glad to hear it. Call me when you can. streaming right now isn't important. I you need”
Contradicting the previous claim with a direct counter-example. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 0:30
The speaker is comparing their own actions to the other person's, but the situations aren't equivalent. It's a 'you did this, so they should too' fallacy. 🍎🍊
Why this score: The speaker attempts to refute the previous accusation by highlighting their own actions ('literally dropped everything and instantly went to check on your dad'). However, this creates a false equivalence because the circumstances, relationships, and individual choices of the two parties are likely different, making a direct comparison unfair and manipulative.
Original quote: “You literally dropped everything and instantly went to check on your dad at least five times on stream.”
Accusation of 'revenue farming' off a sister's alleged abuse — pure emotional button pushing. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 2:30
Calling someone a 'weirdo' for 'farming revenue' off a serious allegation. That's just hitting the outrage button hard. 😡
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged language ('weirdo', 'farm revenue') to provoke a strong emotional reaction from the audience, rather than presenting a reasoned argument or evidence about the situation. It's designed to create disgust and judgment without actual proof of intent.
Original quote: “So So yeah, wait a minute. No, no, you're right. So now you're using the fact that your sister got by your dad allegedly. Now you're trying to farm revenue off your sister being what a [ __ ] weirdo. What's wrong with this person?”
A heartfelt thank you and a casual goodbye that hits different now. 💔 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 4:30
That 'I'll see you around' hits like a ton of bricks knowing the context. Just pure, raw emotion. 😭
Why this score: This isn't a claim, it's a moment. The community comments confirm this is a poignant farewell from Asmon's dad, who has since passed away. The casual 'I'll see you around' becomes incredibly impactful in retrospect, making it a powerful emotional beat rather than a factual statement. It's a moment of shared grief and nostalgia for viewers who followed the channel.
Original quote: “Kind of cheers me up. So, thanks guys and and uh I'll see you around.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →