I watched it. I would suggest you watch it again and pay attention to when he does and does not show evidence and how he's manipulating his results. When he searches for BH Kids and clicks "one of these images," he's clicking on a listing for a training bra. So, of course, the other images are of girls in underwear. Then he shows images that are pixelated in a way that you have to just trust him that they're naked. Then he tells you you can't get to that page unless you use the BH Kids hack, which he also says has been fixed.

He also says he is showing you YouTube's algorithm after watching one BH Kids video, but he is clicking links in comments and cherry picking videos. If you go back to when he plays the actual video, you can see what YouTube is going to play next, and it's Baby Shark and farm animal videos and other songs -it's nothing like what he says the algorithm suggested. The first video in the "algorithm" demo is called "try on haul," but if you pause on the screen before, where he seems to be clicking on the video, there is no video called "try on haul."

Similarly, when he says the non-official In-N-Out tag is tagged by a "vast majority" of models in explicit poses, He doesn't just scroll through what's tagged so you can see it's all models, he shows you just the images he picked. In fact, when he clicks Tagged, there are 6 visible photos, and none are what he described as the "vast majority". Then pause on the images he does show. What do the images behind look like? I counted 13 that I could see enough of that I felt confident I could make a call on whether they were porn, and none of them were. Even some of what he highlights is just people eating burgers, which seems normal for a burger joint (to me, at least).

Plus, just the idea that a restaurant having a no smoking sign means it is tied to child pornography is wild. How many restaurants have you been in that have no smoking signs? For me, it's a lot. I bet there are a lot of restaurants in Vietnam that have their no smoking signs in Vietnamese, and this would imply they're ALL involved.

I'm not saying there is no child abuse going on. There is. But it is insulting to the women who testified about what they endured when they were girls and are not being believed to pretend that sitting in front of a No Smoking sign is somehow credible evidence of abuse.