Claims

The Quick Normalisation of VPNs

The Quick Normalisation of VPNs

Hasan seeks to set the temperature of the trip very early with his foray into the state firewall and his usage of VPNs. AT&T automatically routes your phone through Hong Kong when you’re in China. It just has a built‑in VPN. U.S. carriers roaming in China do sometimes backhaul traffic through Hong Kong or U.S. gateways so your IP appears non‑mainland and apps like YouTube still work. That’s not a “VPN” you control; it’s carrier routing. Hasan is seemingly unaware of this. It’s also not some secret bypass the Chinese state is unaware of; roaming agreements require cooperation with Chinese carriers and regulators. His “what do you think, China doesn’t know?” line is correct on that narrow point: of  course  they know. The bigger problem is the entire scenario is setup BECAUSE of the Chinese state which Hasan seems super uncritical of. Calling it a “built‑in VPN” is technically inaccurate, and more importantly, it lets him gloss over what’s really happening:  AT&T and Chinese state‑linked carriers are jointly managing that routing.  It is not some privacy shield. Some of the statements he made are also pretty absurd... I’ve never used a VPN before, now I have VPN on everything. He has had VPN sponsors before; this is at best performative, or he's lying to his audience about said VPN sponsors talking points. Something content creators love to do is have their sponsors done under the guise that they actually use it - when they don't. I've been hyper critical of LTT doing this when they don't actively use the software in their business suite. I will give all of my private information to the Chinese government. I do not care. I want to get a Huawei phone. I want to drive a BYD car. What are they going to do with it? Do whatever you want with it, king. In the U.S. context, he spends hours on: How dangerous it is that American tech companies and the NSA vacuum up your data. How harmful facial recognition, geolocation, and ad‑tech surveillance are. How bad it is that data end up in the hands of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In China, he says the quiet part loud: he’s willing to hand everything to that state and mocks people who are wary. You can argue he’s being hyperbolic for laughs; he clearly is. But given his influence and the political context (he’s streaming live from Beijing, surrounded by minders, about to be distributed on Chinese platforms), this comes off less like edgy joking and more like complacency about a surveillance regime he would absolutely excoriate in the U.S./EU. If an American influencer said, “I love giving all my data to the NSA, what are they going to do, king?,” he’d roast them for days.

Other Claims
The Double Standard Between Chinese and US Police

The Double Standard Between Chinese and US Police

During Hasans China Trip he made an effort to visit Tiananmen Square. At Tiananmen Square, Hasan and his group get stopped by security/police. The officers: Ask to see his phone background / whether he’s recording. Make him stop and show what he’s filming. In effect, are checking that a foreign livestreamer at the most politically sensitive square in China is not doing anything “disrespectful.” His own summary is basically: They thought we were there to mock Mao or do Logan Paul‑style content. He complies, jokes about it, and then explicitly downplays the severity: This is actually one of the things that I want to show Americans…people have this false notion that they will arrest you for a meme. It’s not like that at all. Okay, calm down. But put this in the context of his U.S. content: In the U.S., he is rightly furious about: Police demanding to search phones. Warrantless access to digital devices. Surveillance and harassment at protests. He’s endlessly clear that handing over your phone to law enforcement  on the street  under vague suspicion is a civil liberties red line. He's against the US Patriot Act that allows a lot of unjust searches. If a Capitol police officer in D.C. demanded to scroll his camera roll to check he wasn’t “being disrespectful” at, say, the Lincoln Memorial towards Trump or Bush, you know very well he would: Call it out as unconstitutional. Probably refuse and lawyer up. Milk it for content as evidence of U.S. authoritarian creep. In Beijing, the same kind of behavior — "show us what you’re filming; we don’t want mockery at the symbolic heart of the state" gets spun as: Understandable cultural difference. “Not what silly Americans imagine.” Basically harmless. Context Matters This is Tiananmen Square, where: You cannot legally talk about or commemorate 1989. Foreign journalists and livestreamers are watched particularly closely. Political speech critical of the Party is not protected in any meaningful sense. He explicitly tells chat: “We’re in China. You can’t be cracking jokes like that. Calm down, stakes are a little bit higher, don’t you think?” He self‑censors, tells chatters to self‑censor, and treats that as normal. In the U.S. he rightly argues that being able to make tasteless or subversive jokes at a politically sensitive site, and to refuse phone searches, is part of what civil liberties are about. In China, he normalizes the opposite, because he’s a guest and because the power imbalance is different. That’s human and understandable but it is a double standard, and if he were being consistent with his own values he’d at least name it plainly: “Look, this level of control around Tiananmen is oppressive and I would not accept it at home. I’m choosing to go along because it’s their turf, but let’s not pretend it’s fine.” He doesn’t do that. And, it's incredibly painful for me to see those political folks I once looked up to fail at the first hurdle. He'll wear a PRESS uniform in the states to avoid any police action against himself, and for what I think is poser behaviour more than anything else. But then drops all sense of journalism the minute he hits China.
In Britain you are better off on benefits than in a two-income household of over 100k

In Britain you are better off on benefits than in a two-income household of over 100k

Full Tweet from Samantha Smith Only in Britain would you be better off on benefits than in a two-income household of over 100k
General Patton was right. We did defeat the wrong enemy.

General Patton was right. We did defeat the wrong enemy.

This quote is widely circulated and often cited to suggest that Patton believed the United States should have aligned with Nazi Germany. The user in question posted this under a tweet of a girl making the Nazi salute suggesting Patton would have aligned with this user and the girls beliefs that Nazism wasn't the enemy. This is wrong however, there is no verified public speech or official document where Patton definitively said this phrase verbatim . It is believed to be a paraphrased summary of sentiments he expressed in his private writings and conversations , especially in the months following Germany’s surrender in 1945. Historical Context: After the fall of Nazi Germany in May 1945, Patton was appointed as the military governor of Bavaria and was in charge of overseeing post-war occupation. During this time: Patton grew increasingly disillusioned with U.S. policy , particularly regarding the treatment of former Nazis and the rise of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe . He became vocal about the threat of communism and was highly critical of the Soviet Union, expressing that the U.S. should confront the Soviets sooner rather than later . In letters and diaries , Patton criticized the denazification process and expressed sympathy for ordinary Germans , contrasting them with what he saw as a growing communist threat. In a letter to his wife in May 1945, Patton wrote: "The German is a strange mixture of the beast and the superman, but there is no doubt he has manners, culture and the ability to fight. It is a pity that we have to destroy such a people. Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe." He also stated in another letter: "I think we have been fighting the wrong enemy all along." This is the closest known authentic statement matching the "wrong enemy" quote. These views eventually led to Patton being relieved of his command and reassigned. He died shortly after, in a car accident in December 1945. Bottom Line: While the phrase "We defeated the wrong enemy" captures the essence of Patton's postwar concerns about Soviet expansionism and U.S. foreign policy , it is not a direct quote but a summarized sentiment found in his private correspondence.

Registered as a member of the Republican Party of Florida in June 2024

Registered as a member of the Republican Party of Florida in June 2024

Sydney Sweeney has been accused of registering as a Republican in the state of Florida. The date of her registration is important as this would have been after the primaries. Normally people can register for political parties in an attempt to vote in a different candidate. Say she wanted someone else instead of Trump. That isn't the case here as June 2024 was after the Republican Primary (March 2024)
Stated that Israel has the right to cut off food and water

Stated that Israel has the right to cut off food and water

A claim on social media under Kier Starmers call to end the conflict in Gaza has sparked controversy as users claim he stated Israel had the right to cut off food and water two years ago. The BBC States: Sir Keir has faced criticism since appearing to say Israel had the "right" to cut off water and energy to Gaza. He later clarified that he meant only that the country had a right to self-defence. Owen Jones from The Guardian also covered this in more detail following Starmers comments Facing an immediate and merited backlash, he sought to claim he had not said what he, in fact, had. “I was saying Israel had the right to self-defence,” he explained . “When I said ‘that right’, it was that right to self-defence. I was not saying Israel had the right to cut off water, food, fuel or medicines – on the contrary.” While Owen is pushing his own narrative. To us, it seems pretty clear. Starmer DID say the comments, and then immediately retracted them on the same day. We think it's unfair to hound him 2 years later as if this is some kind of gotcha.
says its "weird" that "ISIS never attacks Israel and only kills Muslims"

says its "weird" that "ISIS never attacks Israel and only kills Muslims"

Hasan Piker claimed that it's weird ISIS never attacks Israel. What we want to do is explore whether this claim is accurate or not. Users have claimed it is false and highlights Hasan's lack of knowledge of the Middle East, especially recent events. ISIS and its affiliates have explicitly called for attacks against Israel and have carried out or inspired attacks within Israeli territory. You can check our evidence section below for more details on this. ISIS's violence is not exclusively directed at Muslims. While most of their victims are indeed Muslim (often those they deem "apostates" or "infidels" due to sectarian differences or opposition to their ideology), ISIS has also targeted non-Muslims globally. They have claimed responsibility for attacks in various countries against Christian communities, Yazidis, and others, and have explicitly called for attacks against Christians and Jews.