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.
Claims analyzed
Setting the stage with a vague 'internet mass surveillance demon' and 'computer in danger' warning. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling it a 'mass surveillance demon' is pure fear-mongering — no specifics, just vibes 😈
Suggests a 'conspiracy' that 'powers above us' don't want us owning computers. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
A 'conspiracy' with 'powers above us' and no names? That's just asking questions with extra steps, bro 🕵️♂️
Kids are 'full-time responsibility,' 'nanny state can't' — straw man — Straw Man (20/100)
Pitting 'parents' vs. 'nanny state' like there's no middle ground. Classic straw man setup for the upcoming laws. 🤡
Internet as 'last bastion of real human freedom' — loaded language — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling the internet the 'last bastion of real human freedom' is a bit much — it's a platform, not a fortress 🏰.
Dismisses inaction by saying 'better than nothing' and clarifies 'fight back' isn't literal. ⚔️ — Straw Man (20/100)
Sets up a straw man of 'doing nothing' versus 'literal musket fight' to make his point seem like the only reasonable option. 🤡
Dismissing inaction by comparing it to ineffective protest, then clarifying 'fight back' isn't literal. — Straw Man (20/100)
Sets up 'doing nothing' vs. 'getting a musket' as the only options, then pivots to 'democracy.' That musket was never on the table, chief. 🐴🔫
Comparing losing to 'ones and zeros' to other countries' perceived failures. — False Equivalence (20/100)
Comparing a bill about online safety to 'losing to emus' is a wild leap. It's not even in the same ballpark. 🤡
Calling out the 'empower parents' line as a cover for a 'nanny state' 🤡 — Loaded Language (45/100)
The speaker's using 'nanny state' to frame the bill as overreaching, not genuinely helpful. It's a classic emotional button. 🙄
Claims KOSA bill's age verification clause is a loophole, citing EFF and other organizations. — No Frame (75/100)
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. ✅
Claims KOSA bill doesn't require age verification but then immediately pivots to a loophole that forces it. — Volume Game (45/100)
Says it 'doesn't require age verification' then immediately explains how it does. The bill giveth, the bill taketh away 🤡
Highlights the unreliability of AI age estimation with exaggerated examples. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Uses extreme examples of AI age-guessing fails to make the point, painting a picture of total chaos. It's a bit much. 🤡
Argues age verification expanded from porn to 'every fucking social media' and beyond. — Straw Man (20/100)
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. 🚩
Speaker lists harms to minors from Section 213, then dismisses it as 'yada yada yada'. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Dismissing a list of serious harms with 'yada yada yada' kinda downplays the whole point of the section, no? 🙄
Using 'creepy shit' to describe identity tracking — loaded language for emotional impact. — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calling it 'creepy shit' is a vibe, not an argument — it's designed to make you feel, not think. 😬
Showing ID for beer vs. uploading to a server is a 'damn well' different privacy risk. — False Equivalence (20/100)
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. 🧱💻
Framing privacy as crucial for journalists and activists, calling services 'scumbag' — Loaded Language (45/100)
Using 'scumbag social media services' while talking about privacy for journalists. The emotional language is doing heavy lifting here. 😠
Claims child protection is a cover for 'mass surveillance' and loss of internet freedom. — Straw Man (20/100)
Presents 'protecting kids' as a fake reason, then attacks the 'real' reason: mass surveillance. It's a classic misdirection. 🤡
Politicians using 'protecting children' as a cover for 'mass surveillance' and 'doxing' everyone. — Straw Man (20/100)
Claims 'protecting children' is a smokescreen for 'mass surveillance' — a classic straw man to dismiss legitimate concerns. 🎭
Standard call to action, asking for engagement. — No Frame (75/100)
Just a standard outro asking for likes and subscribes. Nothing tricky here. 🤷♀️
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →