Things Could Get Really Bad Next Week...
Credibility score: 38/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "Things Could Get Really Bad Next Week..." and rated it 38/100 for credibility (a BS score of 62/100 — low credibility), on 2026-06-27. Its weakest claim — "Kids are 'full-time responsibility,' 'nanny state can't' — straw man" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as straw man. 19 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 19 claims analyzed: 8 scored under 40, 9 between 40 and 69, and 2 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Setting the stage with a vague 'internet mass surveillance demon' and 'computer in danger' warning. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:00
Calling it a 'mass surveillance demon' is pure fear-mongering — no specifics, just vibes 😈
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged terms like 'internet mass surveillance demon' and 'your computer is in danger' without providing any concrete details or evidence. This creates an atmosphere of alarm and urgency, priming the audience for subsequent claims without offering verifiable facts. It's all about the feeling, not the facts.
Original quote: “Hello guys and gals. Me Moodar a lot is changing in the next week. Okay. So again, I know that I've been talking a lot about this internet mass surveillance demon, but you know, I made a few I made a video like a few days ago, you know, where I was telling you your computer is in danger, right?”
Suggests a 'conspiracy' that 'powers above us' don't want us owning computers. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 0:15
A 'conspiracy' with 'powers above us' and no names? That's just asking questions with extra steps, bro 🕵️♂️
Why this score: The speaker introduces a 'conspiracy' involving unnamed 'powers above us' who supposedly don't want people owning their computers. This relies on vague, anonymous authority and speculative claims rather than presenting any evidence or specific actors. It's a classic move to hint at a grand scheme without having to back it up.
Original quote: “You know what I mean? Like, hey, listen, we're at a point where computers are getting really expensive. There's a conspiracy that, hey, maybe the powers above us don't really want us owning all of our computers, right?”
Kids are 'full-time responsibility,' 'nanny state can't' — straw man — Straw Man (20/100)
At 0:30
Pitting 'parents' vs. 'nanny state' like there's no middle ground. Classic straw man setup for the upcoming laws. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false dichotomy between parents taking 'full-time responsibility' and the 'goddamn nanny state' trying to do it. This creates a straw man argument, implying that any government intervention (like the Kids Act) is an attempt to replace parental responsibility, rather than potentially supplementing it or addressing broader systemic issues. It simplifies a complex issue into an either/or scenario.
Original quote: “Sorry to say, kids are a full-time responsibility. You brought them in, you take care of them. The goddamn nanny state can't.”
Internet as 'last bastion of real human freedom' — loaded language — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
Calling the internet the 'last bastion of real human freedom' is a bit much — it's a platform, not a fortress 🏰.
Why this score: The speaker uses highly emotive language ('last bastion,' 'real human freedom') to frame the internet's current state, creating a sense of urgency and importance that might not fully align with the complex reality of online freedoms and restrictions globally. It's a dramatic appeal to emotion.
Original quote: “And one thing that I've learned is a lot of the content that I've made is only possible because the internet is this free last bastion of real human freedom.”
Dismissing inaction by comparing it to ineffective protest, then clarifying 'fight back' isn't literal. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 2:30
Sets up 'doing nothing' vs. 'getting a musket' as the only options, then pivots to 'democracy.' That musket was never on the table, chief. 🐴🔫
Why this score: The speaker creates a false dichotomy between 'doing nothing' and an extreme, unrealistic action ('get the musket'), only to then present their preferred, more moderate action (contacting representatives) as the only sensible alternative. It's a classic straw man to make their suggestion seem more appealing.
Original quote: “And here's the thing. People are like, "Oh, but that's not going to do anything." Brother, it's better than sitting there and doing nothing. Okay? When I say fight back, I ain't saying get the [ __ ] musket and run out on the horse and lay siege to everything you see. That would be against the…”
Dismisses inaction by saying 'better than nothing' and clarifies 'fight back' isn't literal. ⚔️ — Straw Man (20/100)
At 2:30
Sets up a straw man of 'doing nothing' versus 'literal musket fight' to make his point seem like the only reasonable option. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker creates a false dichotomy: either do nothing or engage in a literal armed rebellion. By framing 'fight back' as not involving muskets, he makes his suggestion (contacting reps) seem like the only sensible, non-extreme alternative to total inaction. This ignores a spectrum of other potential actions or forms of protest, simplifying the choice to make his preferred action look more appealing.
Original quote: “And here's the thing. People are like, "Oh, but that's not going to do anything." Brother, it's better than sitting there and doing nothing. Okay? When I say fight back, I ain't saying get the [ __ ] musket and run out on the horse and lay siege to everything you see. That would be against the…”
Calling out the 'empower parents' line as a cover for a 'nanny state' 🤡 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
The speaker's using 'nanny state' to frame the bill as overreaching, not genuinely helpful. It's a classic emotional button. 🙄
Why this score: By immediately jumping to 'nanny state,' the speaker is injecting a strong negative connotation, implying the bill is about control rather than support, which is a common tactic to sway opinion without addressing the specifics of the bill. It's an emotional appeal, not a direct refutation of the bill's stated goals.
Original quote: “I find it funny they mention empower parents. If you wanted to empower parents, you would teach them instead of becoming the [ __ ] nanny state.”
Comparing losing to 'ones and zeros' to other countries' perceived failures. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 4:30
Comparing a bill about online safety to 'losing to emus' is a wild leap. It's not even in the same ballpark. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by comparing the potential impact of a digital safety bill ('losing to ones and zeros') to exaggerated, almost cartoonish, stereotypes of other nations' problems (UK being 'lost,' Canada as 'cuckoldoles,' Australians fighting 'emus'). This trivializes the actual debate around digital rights by putting it on par with absurd, unrelated scenarios.
Original quote: “Like the freest nation in the [ __ ] world. You know, you might be able to say UK is a lost country. Canada's a bunch of cuckoldoles. Australians are too busy fighting and losing to [ __ ] emus. But Americans are about to lose to [ __ ] ones and zeros. Why? Because they were too [ __ ] lazy to…”
Claims KOSA bill's age verification clause is a loophole, citing EFF and other organizations. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:30
He's laying out the legal interpretation from groups like EFF, not just pulling it out of his ass. Solid sourcing for a legal take. ✅
Why this score: The speaker is directly referencing the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other legal watchdog organizations, which are credible sources for legal analysis of bills like KOSA. He's not making an unsubstantiated claim but rather relaying expert interpretation, which is a fair way to present complex legal arguments.
Original quote: “Okay, let's protect kids in a way that keeps you safe." But the reality of it is is that there's been a lot of lawyers and a lot of people that have looked at this and have found that even though it says that yes, it doesn't require age verification. And technically the KOSA section of the bill…”
Claims KOSA bill doesn't require age verification but then immediately pivots to a loophole that forces it. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 6:30
Says it 'doesn't require age verification' then immediately explains how it does. The bill giveth, the bill taketh away 🤡
Why this score: The speaker initially states the KOSA bill doesn't require age verification, then quickly introduces the 'knows or should have known' clause, which effectively forces platforms to implement age verification to avoid legal trouble. It's a classic volume game: a loud initial claim followed by a quiet, contradictory detail.
Original quote: “Okay, let's protect kids in a way that keeps you safe." But the reality of it is is that there's been a lot of lawyers and a lot of people that have looked at this and have found that even though it says that yes, it doesn't require age verification. And technically the KOSA section of the bill…”
Argues age verification expanded from porn to 'every fucking social media' and beyond. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 8:30
Presents the scope of age verification as a slippery slope from porn to 'every fucking social media' and 'beyond,' implying an overreach that wasn't the initial stated goal. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker sets up a 'straw man' argument by exaggerating the expansion of age verification. While initial discussions often focus on explicit content, the idea that it's now 'every fucking social media' and 'beyond' is a dramatic oversimplification. Many proposed regulations, like COPPA in the US or the Age Appropriate Design Code in the UK, already cover a broad range of online services used by children, not just pornography sites. The speaker implies a sudden, unwarranted expansion, creating a false narrative of mission creep to make the current situation seem more extreme than it might…
Original quote: “it started off with, hey, we don't want kids to have access to like pornography, which is a great I I'm not even against that. I don't think kids should have access to it in general. It's a very addictive drug and it absolutely can [ __ ] rot your brain. But look at where it evolved from, right?…”
Highlights the unreliability of AI age estimation with exaggerated examples. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:30
Uses extreme examples of AI age-guessing fails to make the point, painting a picture of total chaos. It's a bit much. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker uses highly dramatized and specific examples of AI age estimation errors ('32 treated as a kid,' '15 guessed as 26') to emphasize the unreliability. While AI age estimation can be imperfect, these specific, vivid scenarios are used to evoke a stronger emotional response and underscore the perceived absurdity, rather than presenting a balanced view of typical error rates.
Original quote: “Those systems, we all know make [ __ ] mistakes because they rely on vision models that sometimes could say, "Hey, listen. You're somebody that obviously looks under the age of 18, but you're actually [ __ ] 32, so we're going to treat you as a kid. Oh, you're somebody that's developed a little bit…”
Speaker lists harms to minors from Section 213, then dismisses it as 'yada yada yada'. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 10:30
Dismissing a list of serious harms with 'yada yada yada' kinda downplays the whole point of the section, no? 🙄
Why this score: The speaker recites a list of serious harms to minors (physical violence, sexual exploitation, drug use, financial harm) that Section 213 aims to address. By immediately following this with 'yada yada yada,' they use dismissive language to undermine the perceived importance or validity of these concerns, framing them as trivial or boilerplate rather than legitimate issues.
Original quote: “beyond social media services. Now if we declare something to be unsuitable for minors, whatever the [ __ ] that may be, uh we're going to be starting to like block everything there, right? So even in this case when you look at section 213 where they talk about a provider of a covered platform shall…”
Using 'creepy shit' to describe identity tracking — loaded language for emotional impact. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:30
Calling it 'creepy shit' is a vibe, not an argument — it's designed to make you feel, not think. 😬
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('creepy shit') to describe the idea of identity tracking, which frames the issue negatively without providing specific, logical reasons for concern. It's a rhetorical shortcut to evoke a strong emotional response from the audience.
Original quote: “to have our identities attached to every single thing that we do and every single thing that we post and every single thing that we inquire about. That's where the real creepy [ __ ] is starting to come across if you're really picking up what I'm putting down.”
Showing ID for beer vs. uploading to a server is a 'damn well' different privacy risk. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 12:30
Comparing a physical ID check to uploading it online is like comparing a brick to a digital blueprint. They're both 'ID' but the risk profile is wildly different. 🧱💻
Why this score: The speaker sets up a straw man argument by anticipating a counter-example ('buying a beer') and then immediately dismisses it as 'damn well different.' While there are indeed differences in risk between a physical ID check and uploading it to a server, the speaker frames it as an obvious, undeniable distinction without fully exploring the nuances or acknowledging any potential similarities in the *purpose* of verification. It's a preemptive strike to shut down a valid, albeit simplified, counterpoint.
Original quote: “And before somebody says, "But Muda, when you buy a beer at the at the store, don't you have to show an ID anyways?" Showing your ID to a [ __ ] you know, bartender or like somebody at a store once is a lot different than uploading it to a server, not knowing if it's going to be deleted or not or…”
Framing privacy as crucial for journalists and activists, calling services 'scumbag' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 14:30
Using 'scumbag social media services' while talking about privacy for journalists. The emotional language is doing heavy lifting here. 😠
Why this score: While the importance of privacy for journalists and activists is a valid point, the speaker injects strong, emotionally charged language like 'scumbag social media services.' This loaded language aims to evoke a negative emotional response and reinforce the idea that these services are inherently malicious, rather than simply stating the facts about data collection.
Original quote: “It's actually important for people who are journalists, people that are, you know, fighting tyrannical governments or people that just really care about their privacy, right? People that are talking about sensitive things. Well, that information gets locked down to people that are only willing to…”
Claims child protection is a cover for 'mass surveillance' and loss of internet freedom. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 16:30
Presents 'protecting kids' as a fake reason, then attacks the 'real' reason: mass surveillance. It's a classic misdirection. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker sets up a straw man argument by dismissing the stated goal of 'protecting children' as a mere facade. They then pivot to an exaggerated claim that the true intention is 'mass surveillance' and the complete eradication of internet freedom, implying that any measure related to child protection online is inherently a step towards total control. This simplifies a complex issue into a false dichotomy, making it easier to attack the 'surveillance' aspect without engaging with the actual arguments for child safety measures.
Original quote: “A lot of these politicians want you to [ __ ] think it's about protecting your little kids, but in reality, it's about pushing the next wave of mass surveillance and the next wave of making sure that everybody on the internet on any social media site anywhere really are just doxing themselves. So…”
Politicians using 'protecting children' as a cover for 'mass surveillance' and 'doxing' everyone. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 16:30
Claims 'protecting children' is a smokescreen for 'mass surveillance' — a classic straw man to dismiss legitimate concerns. 🎭
Why this score: The speaker sets up a false dichotomy: either legislation is genuinely about protecting children, or it's entirely about mass surveillance. This dismisses any nuanced intent or potential benefits of child protection measures, framing them solely as a deceptive front for a more sinister agenda. It's easier to attack the 'mass surveillance' boogeyman than to debate the actual merits or drawbacks of specific child safety proposals.
Original quote: “we're being gas lined into thinking this is all about protecting the children when it really isn't. Okay? A lot of these politicians want you to think it's about protecting your little kids, but in reality, it's about pushing the next wave of mass surveillance and the next wave of making sure that…”
Standard call to action, asking for engagement. — No Frame (75/100)
At 18:30
Just a standard outro asking for likes and subscribes. Nothing tricky here. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker is simply concluding the video with a common request for audience engagement. It's a straightforward call to action, not a claim or a manipulative rhetorical device.
Original quote: “If you like what you saw, please like, comment, and subscribe. Dislike if you dislike it.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →