Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Unpopular Opinion: Both Johnny and Swoop Are Wrong
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 сер 2024
- Johnny Silvestri, the man who alleged Joshua David Evans had an inappropriate friendship with him while Silvestri was a child, has been accused of making false allegations, doctoring evidence, harassing other victims, and creating and participating in group chats with minors. UA-camr Swoop recently released a nearly 4-hour (yes HOUR) video on Johnny. Although I initially like the video, I realize Swoop makes some unsubstantiated claims (which to be clear, she lambasted Johnny for exactly that) and fails to recognize how many victims become perpetrators. I doubt @PettyUniversity will see this video, but if she does, I hope she sees it as a call-in rather than a call-out because I believe she had good intentions, but got derailed somewhere along the way. I felt it pertinent to bring attention to this situation because in the past I've defended and even praised Johnny.
I have to disagree with you that Swoop's angle was to say that Johnny's own grooming didn't count because he himself was guilty of grooming. During Swoop's interview with Johnny, she kept trying to get him to nail down exactly what his own grooming entailed, and he just couldn't explain it. There were no examples of grooming, no proof of grooming. And now, in this interview, he was saying he did NOT see himself as a victim of grooming, after publicly claiming that he WAS a victim of grooming on other people's platforms.
That is the inconsistency that she was looking at. Johnny could NOT provide proof of anyone interacting with him in a grooming way, but people COULD provide proof of Johnny interacting with them in a grooming. THAT is the issue.
This is not a victim who was sadly turned into a perpetrator. This was a person who was getting attention from claiming to be a victim, who took attention away from the real victims, and who is back-tracking now that they're being asked to provide details of how they were victimised.
I'm glad that you're addressing this, because as important as it is to believe victims, it's also important to respect truth and evidence when it's brought to light, so that the real victims can be supported. For me, my belief isn't so much 'always believe victims', it's 'always listen to victims'. And I say that as a victim of child abuse and adult sexual abuse myself. I will always listen to a victim, hear their story out, and respect them for speaking up. But if I go into things always believing, then I'm getting my emotions involved straight away, and that can get dangerous, that can open up biases. I'll keep my ears open, my mind open, my logic and reasoning switched on, and my heart compassionate.
This is so perfectly said. Thank you so much.
Her argument wasn’t “he did this bad thing so it didn’t happen to him” her argument was “he said this is what happened, this different thing is what happened according to the evidence.”
She also didn’t bring up someone who didn’t want to be brought up. Saying “if you’re a person who loved Johnny and you don’t think your interactions were wrong you need to do some work and reflection bc even he says he was wrong” is not bringing up a person who didn’t want to be brought up.
Johnny defamed Josh per the evidence they both provided.
Also, as an adult you’re responsible for your behavior. He wasn’t groomed by Josh or Colleen. Could he have possibly been a victim of a person in his personal life? Sure, but it’s extremely inappropriate to speculate about that and if he WAS a victim speculation can be retraumatizing.
The video didn’t need to be as long or repetitive as it was and I assume it turned out like that bc of how Johnny said things that triggered Swoop, which doesn’t make it better.
Lastly, documentaries DEFINITELY have a bias. They are multiple documentaries on many true crime stories, often coming to a different conclusion because they are trying to sway the viewer in the way they want to. There are often documentaries made about a person in order to sway the public opinion of that person. A documentary is not neutral, no media is neutral, it all has a perspective and a bias.
I also am of the opinion that Swoop doesn’t do documentaries, she does long form, deep dive commentary content. This was one of the few times she’s ever done anything like interview someone, doesn’t make the content less valuable, just not a documentary.
Aren't documentaries long form commentary content?
@@viki7268She inserts herself too much into the video for me to consider her a good documentarian in my opinion. I get that Johnny triggered her by saying his situation is comparable to SA but she should have left that out because it comes across that she made this video because Johnny upset her not because Josh was innocent of grooming. She also got too emotional, usually documentarians try not too have too personal of a relationship with the subjects. Lots of people fail at that but Swoop doesn't seem to care at all and even openly stating she trusts Adam. Which I trust Adam but that isn't something I would put into the words, I would let the evidence show he was trustworthy. I would let the evidence show Johnny is untrustworthy. Her videos are more personal opinion with a lot of evidence to back up her opinion.
@@patty1247… Then how is her stating her opinion bad if the evidence backs it up ultimately? 🤦🏾♀️ Dumb argument.
@@patty1247You need to go look up the official definitions of documentaries, then you wouldn’t say all the foolish things you say about Swoops work. There is no one set style. A documentary can be anything if it provides facts, with or without interviews, with or without commentary. Swoop herself would say she does documentary/commentary and the amount of facts, interviews, commentary, opinion varies. But they all meet the definition of documentary.
Joshua is a victim of Johnny’s stalking and harassment. Johnny lied at every opportunity he had. Josh had to come on the doc to get the correct information out there. I don’t believe it was for shock value at all, she waited until the end to preview part two so I guess I’m missing how that would be for shock value. Nothing that comes out of Johnny’s mouth can be trusted anymore. Even Adam agrees with how Swoop handled this so I don’t think it’s appropriate to say she was as wrong as Johnny.
Edit to add: Johnny has not once been able to prove himself being a victim of anyone. So let’s not just assume this man is a victim when mostly everything he’s said can be proven to be false
I won’t disagree Johnny is a liar. At the same time Josh was lurking in Tiny Chats with minors.
@EricaMones Johnny admitted he was lurking and talking in chats with minors
What video where you watching.
She showed evidence. She quoted johnny victims.
Showed tweets of him openly tweeting to the children in video chats.
Johnny couldnt even give evidence of this alleged grooming. Johnny wasnt groomed.
He was never a victim just a predator.
She isnt a pop psychogy youtuber.
He even deleted messages.
You are still wrong.
Seems like owe swoop too. Seeing she is a victim herself.
@@cherrytwizzlersounds like you should do an expose on her with all that info! You know, instead of lurking in youtube comments.
@@cherrytwizzler I'm not the one making very bold claims in youtube comments. You should totally do an expose with all your knowledge!
@@cherrytwizzler Swoop? Yes! I did! So why don't you team up with Johnny and bring this all to light for people who don't know her? Clearly you have things you want to say.
I highly respect her bringing Josh in for an interview. Johnny is making some serious allegations that could ruin his life. He should get the chance to tell his story. I don’t think she did that for shock value at all. She is just very thorough with her investigations.
I’m not opposed to her talking to Josh. It’s all in how she teased it in the video and on Instagram to drum up shock.
@@EricaMonesShe worked hard on this series, she even caught onto John’s tricks and had to prolong part 3 during the process of pulling it together just to ensure that she was correct. She’s lost a lot of money from sponsors taking so long to perfect this information. It’s not fair that respectfully your only two arguments in the comments are ‘Josh shouldn’t have given John his phone number’ and she’s ‘teasing it on instagram for shock factor.’ For part 3, John talked her in circles for 6 hours and used that time length as bragging rights to the other victims. Her interview with Josh took 7 hours, they’re going to be touching on more than just John. They’ll even be touching on Colleen and addressing the tiny chat stuff. Sure it’s safe to say that she’s allowed to tease this when it’s conjuring up to over 10+ hours of footage, about $60k lost roughly.
@@EricaMonesshe did 24 hours worth of interviews, she did a lot of work for this series. She’s not allowed to promote it?
There's evidence (some of which was in Swoopdoc) Johnny stated in group chats to engage in the same behaviors he says were committed against him. IMO it's pretty clear the ring is the group chats & Balliger family events & internet spaces used to find & exploit the energy of minors. Johnny used those resources to expand his own 'fame' & access. Even IF Johnny was a victim, (the known timeline heavily implies he was't a minor & his parents were much more involved than other victims, so that changes scope of potential impact for him) whatever he went through does nothing to mitgate his behavior towards others in the Colleen or other fandoms
Re: the first part, Swoop didn’t make that clear in the third part of the doc. The way it was framed could suggest it was separate. It could have been a matter of assuming people would know what she was talking about from the other two videos and not specifying. She should have been even more clear if that was true because the allegations are very serious and specifics matter.
@@mv9653 she could have been more clear. She leaned into the way the algorithm works. Specifics do matter. Maintaining privacy & respecting anonymity of those who request it matters too. I don't love everything she's done, but none of the available info I know of mediate framing calls the voracity into question
I think the ring part was how johnny allowed his friend (the chapo guy) to have access to his young fans plus the chapo guy bringing MORE ADULT MEN into the group chats and video calls.
@@cunni3tv yep
@@cunni3tv yep
It’s just you. She did show proof that Johnny was in chats with minors and talking to minors when he said he would never do that… did you watch the end of the video? And yes it was just you because I don’t think she did anything for shock value. She was just giving Joshua an interview to talk about what has been happening with him and he hasn’t done an interview in a long time. I’m sorry, but swoops video was amazing and nothing felt icky it’s just you feeling that way hunny..
I never denied Johnny was in group chats with minors. And I don’t condone that behavior. That being said, I still think there were reaches in Swoop’s video.
Well, unless she actually provided the metadata, it isn’t “proof.” Did she provide the metadata anywhere?
For someone with the name 'PrincipledPerspectives,' you sure do lack that. Get some standards.
@@EricaMonesthis video should be removed. While I agree that the terminology “underground online grooming ring” is a stretch, it doesn’t change the fact that it was an adult participating in the inappropriate group chats with minors. You stating that she didn’t show proof is false and this video screams click bait. She literally shows video calls that he is on with minors. Do better, and don’t attack people that actually put in the time to interview and get statements from those involved. Unlike you. Also, just so I’m clear. Check your video at about 3 minutes when you state she doesn’t provide proof.
@@ThomasSimoneaux she didn’t provide proof of the underground ring or that Josh wasn’t inappropriate.
I get the circle of abuse but snoop asked SPECIFICALLY what abuse he went through and he wasn’t capable of naming one. Was josh inappropriate with John at some level? Yes, absolutely. But that doesnt mean josh groomed john, that doesnt mean josh is a groomer, doesnt mean josh is an abuser and John has called him ABUSER multiple times and called for jail time for him….. for what?
Josh should not be in jail. Johnny is wrong about that among many other things.
He fucked around and found out 🤷♀️
Holding someone accountable is not wrong.
And I agree. Johnny’s behaviors also don’t detract from my issues with how the video presented everything.
Johnny was in group chats and video calls with that guy named Tim. Tim has a ton of evidence to be grooming kids (grooming ring).
Joshua was not an angel but there was no evidence provided by Johnny that he was groomed (Like the other victims). Their communications are minimal. Johnnys side was edited. He may be a victim but not in these circumstances and is destroying another persons life.
It was also said how the Tim guy used to bring other men into the group chats and calls. Talking about sexual and romantic topics with minors
I agree. At the same time Josh had no business giving Johnny his number.
@EricaMones True but we can't forget he gave him the number in front of the parents because Johnny was saying he was having a hard time. They thought he would "mentor" him or work with him based on Johnny's own words.
Instead of giving behind the parents backs as he potentially suggested.
The parents are also adults and if they didn't like it or thought it was weird they would have addressed it on the spot instead parents said "he's doing the dam thing" based on Johnny's own words.
I got my mentors contact info at 16 in a program and my mom set up my appointments and attended with me.
If the parents didn't have an issue with the number no one else should.
Giving phone numbers is not criminal. His family was present as well. Adults and minors are capable of healthy relationships and there is no evidence of Josh abusing that trust accept ghosting when he himself was suffering trauma. There is also evidence of Josh being pressured by Johnnys own family.
@EricaMones you seem to be forgetting the context of that. He thought he could be a mentor or big brother, but quickly realized the attachment Johnny had and Josh rightfully never engaged any further. Yes, It was inappropriate to give out his number but it was in front of Johnny's parents who were apparently thrilled and supportive. Did he ever call him or text him? Did Josh trauma dump on Johnny in any capacity using text or social media?
Everyone would agree that giving a minor your number is wrong, but in the context of doing it as a big brother/mentor?
I feel Johhny is upset that Josh never actually helped him grow as a content creator and that Josh never lived up to his word for "being there" for Johnny. Whatever Johnny thinks that's supposed to mean.
This doesn't make Josh a groomer, just a selfish jerk. But in no way a groomer.
3:19 I don’t think Josh was interviewed for shock value. It’s always important to hear both sides of a story. It would be wrong if she didn’t interview him.
When I said it was done for shock value, I meant the way it kept being hinted at as a surprise guest, not the interview in and of itself. I agree that it’s good to speak with all parties.
@@EricaMones oic where you’re coming from now and I agree. There’s no need for the hype especially when it’s something serious as this.
@@EricaMonesit’s very sensationalized. It feels like she’s trying to be the next Diane Sawyer or something 😬
Unfortunately, it's what people like to watch, the shock n drama of it all. That's the lure of social media and click bait.
The definition of what a documentary via the American film critic Pare Lorentz defines a documentary film as "a factual film which is dramatic" Without the drama it's not a documentary.
Without the dramatics, it would be classified as a true story in the genre or a docudrama, like made for TV movies based on a real story and no one is looking for that unless it's criminal commentary on social media.
We can't be mad at her for giving us the drama aspect when that's what the algorithm likes and audiences eat it up, whether they believe her or not, the drama of it all has you talking about it.
Isn't that what social media influencers want? To Influence? Now, this video has been influenced to be made because of the drama aspect of a dramatic shocking topic to boot.
Remember, Adam told his story without any drama and said he did his original video "nicely" and no one believed him in 2020.
Can't hate the shock of ot all not the style because it's what the app thrives on in the documentary/commentary space.
Appreciate your opinion
@@EricaMonesGood grief. She showed clips of the Josh interview at the end of the Johnny video. After that there was no secrecy, no one was surprised, it was announced as all films and documentaries are. Nothing wrong with that, you’re just looking for anything you can find to express a different opinion, biased already because you’ve defended Johnny in the past. Swoop was not wrong. She presented facts and commentary as she always does. You’re just after clicks. Swoop is an excellent marketer; you’re just a misrepresenting tag along.
The name of the last video "Josh tells ALL" was very much NOT a documentary style title. It made it seem like he was telling a bunch of secrets about Colleen. It was definitely misleading and baiting. It also put a target on his back too because it sounds like "blabbed" about everything and that's not true. I appreciate the points you made and yes, it may be unpopular but it is indeed important. Thank you.
Documentaries have no style. They are titled any way the publisher wants. On top of that, titles are always meant to entice viewers to watch, which you did. Titles are not the documentary. They are merely descriptors. Your points are not valid.
@@ReviewsAndMore9 Did you think this was a high school debate? This is the comment section. Anyone can have an opinion. But facts are facts:
Titles aren't the documentary? No and some titles are misleading.
They are merely descriptions: Uh...No.
The publisher? .I think you meant director, film maker or documentarian.
Yeah, no. Sorry Johnny in absolutely NO way was a victim in any circumstance nothing happened to him. The only true & real victim in that whole story IS Josh hands down. Johnny is a predator ALL on his own fueled by his narcissism.
I agree Johnny lied. Josh was still lurking in Tiny Chats with minors, which is not okay.
You got it wrong
He admitted himself to being in group chats with minors. According to himself doing the same things Joshua was doing. By his own logic that would make him a groomer as well. How can someone be groomed when only 20 texts have being exchanged (most message sent by Johnny without a response by Joshua), and most their interactions were held in public, and/or with Johnny's parents knowledge? He withhold text messages, doctored messages, according to him was 17-year old for 4 years straight (messed up timeline), shamed/blamed victims, on and on.
And josh wasnt in groupchat with minors right? I haven’t heard that. Just that he was speaking to josh in some dms
@@cunni3tv He and Colleen were in tinychat. That has been confirmed.
I understand your point of view however, not sure why everyone has an issue with Josh giving his number when the parents were ok with it.
Not saying it was right, but its not our place to judge what parents deem right for their kids. They clearly liked Josh, followed him and were excited he got the number.
That’s valid. At the same time, groomers and other inappropriate adults often get the parents’ consent and gain their trust.
@EricaMones thus we have yet to understand the grooming when it comes to Johnny. Giving the number in front of the parents, less than 20 texts that we have seen, and barely talking to him otherwise would suggest that there was not trust trying to be established, at least on Josh's end. More of a number to help a kid who was obviously hurting and reaching out imo, yet still not the best idea.
Josh didn't even think/know, the spoof channel Johnny wound up running was his. He Initially thought it was someone else and that person told Josh it was Johnny. How close could they have been if Josh didn't know Johnny was running it?
It's hard for me to see where the established trust was being formed with so few instances of them talking. Establishing trust usually takes more than what we have seen. Now texts inappropriate yes but grooming not that I can see.
@@EricaMonesbut did Josh do anything that would equate to grooming? We keep going back to what groomers do but was any of those tactics done by Joshua?
In 6 hours, Johnny couldn't say one thing that would make Josh a groomer. It's pretty safe to say he isn't and never was.
@@TenaciousTheSketcherHe wasn’t groomed. Plain and simple. These psychos defending Johnny is insane.
The bleeps actually help me because it can leave enough of the word to know what word she means without being demonitized. Editing out totally and I can never figure out what word.
What’s wrong with the bleeps?
The harsh sound can be startling, some other channels use softer or lower frequency sounds to cover words that can't be said so that the sudden harsh sounds don't trigger a startle response.
@@bernienelson8926Okay? Jfc people want EVERYONE to use the same thing. Homogenized bullshit.
@@bernienelson8926Turn your volume down.
@@ReviewsAndMore9 I wish I could, but then it lowers everything the person is saying, and I have hearing loss so everything kind of disappears. When I make videos on my other channel, I keep the first syllable of the word and then make the rest silent, so that the listener can figure out what the word is, without the censoring interrupting the rest of the video or making them need to change volume.
How is it icky and sor shock value to interview someone who was accused of horroble things without proof that all evidence seems to proove to be a lie?
When I said it was done for shock value, I meant the way it kept being hinted at as a surprise guest, not the interview in and of itself. I agree that it’s good to speak with all parties.
Spankie herself called her own content “tea.” The whole lip smacking, tea sipping gimmick really cheapens sensitive topics, even for the scenes when she manages to keep the teacup off camera. Asking viewers to relive the most traumatic experiences of their life while constantly claiming to be a victim herself is incredibly manipulative. It’s literally trauma bonding.
@@Luxe-fz4vyIt does not cheapen serious subjects. It provides some humor to break up the drama a bit for those easily triggered. Just because you don’t understand the reasoning, doesn’t make it wrong or inappropriate. If you don’t like it, don’t watch. Gees.😊
@@EricaMonesYou purposely exaggerate to support your weak, odd positions.
Swoop is doing a docuseries in the entire story. It was never nor was it going to be a platform for Johnny to tell his story. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by you shouldn't have shock value in a documentary because then it won't be a documentary. I'm a little confused by that. Swoop is a victim and she is trying to get the full story. I don't believe she even intended to have Josh a part of this until she realized she was being lied to by Johnny which is where it took a turn. She explained this when the video started. It was supposed to be part three of Colleen and her victims. At that time Johnny was lumped in with the rest of the genuine victims but it all changed when she found out she was being lied to. So how do you find out the truth? You fact check. You get both sides. I'm positive she rwachwd out to Josh in the first place for a comment like any good journalist would. Did Josh make mistakes? Absolutely!! But, and I feel you understand that obviously Johnny twisted the story to make Josh out to be a groomer which he is not. Maybe some more questions will be answered after the series is over.
Documentaries involve shock value? I’m not sure I agree. And yes, hopefully my questions will be answered in the next part.
Yeah, I disagree with the shock value part too. Propaganda has just become normalized for you.
@@EricaMonesYes, they literally do use shock value. They have to be dramatic. 🤦🏾♀️ Jfc
@@mochabearry why do they have to be dramatic?
@@EricaMones my question was for you. I was quoting what you said. You said it wouldn't be a documentary if it had shock value. Why do you think this? Also you said you are always on the side of the victim. Josh is probably one of the biggest victims of Colleen. I believe there was shock value because this all started as one thing and she uncovered much more while researching.
Jonny admitted being in group chats himself. He made awful comments that attempted to say his (non-)grooming experience was somehow worse than actual sexual abuse.
I said all that in my video.
Swoop is clearly aiming for a very specific type of journalistic style. The Barbra Walter/Oprah Winfrey type, where her personality and her personal opinion (and, by extension, her approval) is at the forefront of what she's reporting. So I def get what you mean by the interview reveal toward the end. My messy ass loves a well-executed moment like that because - well, I'm messy. But yeah, there's a reason I do not and never did care for that style of reporting, so I kinda see myself falling off in a year or so. I'm not knocking production value or the effort of attempting to speak to all parties, even if lme is in-person but... yeah. 4 hours for this? It felt personal - but at least she stated that ig 🤷🏾♂️
I’m interested in seeing what happens when her long interview with Josh Evans comes out. It’s obvious Johnny didn’t tell the truth about a lot of things and was very harmful to the victims AND (not but) I really want to know more details as to Josh’s motivations for giving his phone number to a younger fan. Was it a networking thing as Johnny’s parents originally framed it? Was he honestly trying to be friends with this kid or mentor him? Was it just that Colleen had normalized inappropriate parasocial relationships? Even if Josh didn’t groom Johnny and Josh is more a victim of Johnny than the other way around, I hope Swoop’s interview addresses that more than her video did. (For it being four hours, I didn’t think enough time and detail was given to the only allegation against Josh that was clearly true.)
I am really curious about that too, from what Johnny has said I got the impression that it was an impulsive reaction to Johnny saying that he was depressed etc to the extent that he was dropping out of school. Seems like he didn't realise at that stage that you can't be someone's everything as that isn't healthy for either party. Looks like Josh did work it out pretty quickly by how seldom he interacted with Johnny and that their interactions were instigated by Johnny and his family.
As someone who is Josh age and lived through the beginnings of UA-cam and MySpace this was a pretty common thing for people to do with their fans at the beginning. It meant you cared and were being personal. Though…usually it was the second phone they had which I am curious if that’s what happened with Josh and that’s why he was never responsive to Johnny.
This doesn’t excuse by the way but I’m guessing way more older UA-camrs are a bit scared that it will be revealed they gave out their numbers. This was just my experience when my friend who went to UCLA and was trying to become a content creator. I went to these meetups with her where she was trying to get collaborations done with bigger UA-camrs and they gave her their number several times.
@@patty1247it’s different when it’s business, however it was not a business purpose
Well, I did learn something about the bleeps! If I’m understanding correctly, removing the sound of the word would be a better alternative?
But I agree that I err on the side of believing the victim too, and it makes it frustrating when people like Johnny come along and exploit that for whatever reason. I’m curious to see how the Josh interview will play out.
Bad take
You’re entitled to your opinion.
I get your point. it is a cycle and clearly MANY people involved with colleen or that came from her including some fans that looked up to her now have a pattern it seems. While he may have been being manipulated and groomed by colleen to become like her, johnny wasnt in my opinion groomed by joshua and he did paint it out to be different and altered evidence.
Yes, Johnny lied, but Joshua admitted to giving him his number and lurking in Tiny Chats with minors, which needs to be addressed regardless of Johnny’s motives.
@@EricaMonesin that case I think you should reserve your judgement for after her interview with Joshua then
I’m just waiting for TWODOVES to make an appearance. Spankie sends her to attack all her “haters.”
She’s no different from any of the influencers she complains about.
I can’t unsee this now. She’s everywhere. What is she, Spanky’s alt account? How long has this been going on?
OMG, TwoDoves changed her name to ReviewsAndMore9
I think she totally is Spanky’s alt!!!! Good work posting the username!
I really appreciate you sharing a more unpopular opinion and adding some needed nuance to this situation. Like you said, Swoop has good intentions, but I do feel like her being (understandably) triggered by Johnny led her to presenting the situation in a very biased and dramatized way.
Also, the point you made at the end about people saying things like "I had a bad feeling about them all along" is SO IMPORTANT. Allowing your "feelings" about people to decide whether you think they're a valid victim or not should not be praised! I wish people understood that spreading victim blaming rhetoric hurts *all victims and survivors,* not just the people who may be lying.
I’ve been a long-time lurker on your channel and I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate this nuanced take. ❤
I enjoy a lot of Swoop’s videos but I would definitely agree that she went overboard on this one.
A four hour exposé just didn’t feel like a proportionate response.
Thank you for this thoughtful video (and all of your videos!) and I look forward to the next one!
It's great. That she created a narrative to protect Johnny. She quoted the predator.
@@julieannewaller7541 To be clear, I don’t think anyone (myself included) feels that Johnny is in the right here. Not by a long shot, as it’s looking likely that he’s guilty of the same things he’s accusing others of. But, this response didn’t feel like the right way to address this. It definitely could have been more concentrated and at times I wasn’t sure how what Swoop was discussing was relevant to Johnny’s behaviour. More than anything it felt to me a bit like Swoop was inserting herself too much into the narrative, all while she claims she wants the focus to stay on Colleen’s victims.
i wish the trend of super long deep dives would die down... editing things down is a good thing! 4 hours is going overboard
Why? A lot of people love them. Going into full detail is great.
No I absolutely agree with you. Swoop did a great job but the whole time I kept thinking, this is kind of bizarre to do at this scale. Johnny did do and say a lot of questionable things (and some really bad things), but I've said before, people process trauma differently so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I do believe a lot of how he feels is real to him. Idk the whole thing has gotten too big and too muddy for UA-cam. You can certainly be both a victim and a perpetrator. Same with how they're trying to saint Joshua Evans. He's not clean in this whole situation either, but he also appears to be a victim (lmao I typed this and then you said the same thing 😂) but UA-cam/the Internet as a whole, tend to view things in black and white, but there is soooooo much grey area. I'm glad you made this video and I hope everyone sees it!
This. I feel like it would have been a lot more effective if she edited down a lot, focused less on dramatic editing, and was less repetitive. I kept expecting a huge reveal of something monumental based on how she played it up, and though there was definitely a LOT of questionable information about Johnny, by the end it kind of felt like she was overstating what Johnny had done in a similar way that he was overstating the harm others had caused him.
And yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that so many people are just stating now "Johnny was never a victim" (which, we don't know that he wasn't a victim in any of these situations, at least of possible bullying at the hands of Colleen & Kory) and "Josh did nothing wrong" (again, we don't know this, and in fact, Josh has owned up to having done at least some things wrong). It feels like a part of this trend on the internet to decide on who's the "villain" of a situation and, idk, I just think it's dangerous to look at everything that way.
@@maggiedk yes this exactly!!! You hit everything I couldn't word. And I really wish there was some more explanation about his friend because I just do not get that part at all. Whatever was going on there was bad but, I don't feel there was any beginning or end to that part of the story, like we were all just supposed to know who this guy was. All around everything is just bad rn 🫤
I'm sorry but I don't see Johnny as a victim at all. Swoops video was so long bc she wanted to thoroughly prove that. Johnny is a fame hungry clout chaser. His actions were disgusting and Swoop laid that in great detail.
Damn i didn’t realize holding liars using a serious accusation accountable for their lies and contradictions was a bad thing. Jeez no wonder so many people like Johnny fly under the radar.
@@allison257 the whole point of this is that two things can be true at once: the things Johnny did were very wrong and he should be held accountable, but also, it would've been more responsible and helpful if Swoop presented the information in a more condensed, less biased and melodramatic way. She praised Adam for showing all of his texts with Colleen and giving full context (which he deserves), but the way she chopped up her interview with Johnny and the music she played to make him seem "scarier" painted an incredibly biased picture without full context of the things he was saying.
Again, I think the things Johnny did and said were very wrong, but painting him as a black-and-white villain without any room for nuance is ALSO wrong.
to be honest, I believe she's well intentioned but I've been distrustful of Swoop's judgement for a while now, ever since the Depp v Heard trial. despite the whole "it's not drama, it's dangerous" tagline, she tends to revel in the spectacle of wrongdoing, and it means she loses the nuance. her understanding of victimhood and wrongdoing makes the two incompatible, when that's not how real life works.
I'm sorry but anybody championing Amber Heard is a creep to me. Legacy media are the ones with absolutely no nuance. I'm so glad that trial was televised bc this is the case that truly opened my eyes.
Women can be abusers, men can be abused, Amber Heard DID lie, there was evidence, it was a televised trial so you can’t make excuses for that. I am a survivor of DV myself and it’s so important for male victims to have a voice and speak up about their abuse, you can still be a feminist and hold other women accountable for their abusive behavior. Domestic abuse does not discriminate, once you white pink pussy hat feminists get that through your head maybe we’ll have some healing in the world and we can have some progress with how we treat victims and survivors of domestic abuse who are not women.
@@animec-dramaskpop6362you’re glad that a trial featuring alleged sexual assault was televised? 😒 and they didn’t say anything positive about Amber Heard. They literally just said that very few people covered that case in a nuanced way…which is absolutely true. You’re literally proving this person’s point 🤦🏽♀️
@@sankara5ever Yes I'm glad it was televised
@@sankara5ever (sorry about that Stray comment)
Anyway, Yes, I am. And the Netflix "doc" is biased trash. If I didn't watch that trial with my own eyes I would've been lied to by legacy media. It's how I learned that "believe all victims" shouldn't be the moral standard BECAUSE PPL LIE ABOUT BEING ABUSED.
Really unpopular opinion and this didn't age well. Johnny was wrong and an opportunistic liar. Joshua made bad decisions but in the Johnny context he was THE victim. (I watched all 4 videos)
Giving a teen you don’t know your number and lurking in Tiny Chats with minors are way more than bad decisions in my opinion. I don’t think Johnny is the good guy here. No one is.
In cases like this I think the length is really hurting her. Most people won’t sit through that. If the goal is to inform and spread awareness, she needs to learn to edit herself. As someone who has received that feedback my entire career and still not mastered it, I realize it’s easier said than done for some people.
That video has over 2 million views....😂
@@brandi5448 2 million people clicked on her video. That doesn’t mean they all watched until the end.
@@GivesMelissasABadNamewe all watched it til the end.
@@GivesMelissasABadName I have watched it about three times already on different speeds so… You can’t speak for all of us.
@@allison257That’s anecdotal. You cannot say for sure 100% of all those clicks watched to the end. Statistically speaking, that’s not even possible.
Swoop is playing a dangerous game regarding the Coleen situation - she inmersed herself into a narrative she never belonged itfp, and got too involved to even be objective. Mistakes are being made, and I feel this whole thing might backfire on her eventually, so I must agree with your perspective. Nice video.
Time will come when she'll be forced to choose: sticking to her motto "it's not drama, it's dangerous", or keep on acting like a reckless tabloid in the hopes of becoming the new Oprah. And I think that inflection point is about to happen
@@iilluminazii 🥱
when swoop said 'i'm not gonna say anything about johnny's body language, i'll leave it to [names of body language "analysis" channels]'... that stuff is harmful and ableist what do you mean. omg. then again what do i expect from someone who made like 10 videos about amber heard all whole claiming she's all for victims and as victim she can tell who is a real victim... that's also fucked up if you ask me. what johnny did was terrible and he deserves to be criticized, that's a fact.
another thing about swoop's video i found strange is she used a lot of jessi and lily's podcast footage to prove her point, without giving them a heads up. which resulted in them arguably losing credibility (personally lily was always on thin ice for her johnny depp court case tweets...) all while the podcast is on a break due to jessi's birthday? i feel like telling them in advance would've been a good thing... swoop wanted to break the story and i get it, but it's iffy to me. she made videos about jessi in the past too, like the whole dynamic is weird. yea jessi and lily fucked up as they maybe should've handled josh's response to them better but it is what it is. h3h3 were in a different boat, nor they were directly @ by josh at any point. i find it interesting how swoop managed to completely change the direction of her channel successfully... starting with a video where she exposed an ex youtuber friend for being racist. i remember some small commentary channels run by black creators criticized swoop (esp since she's mixed and there's a lot of extra context to that) for that video too, but she still managed to grew an audience from it 🤔
THANK YOU. It is so fucked up that she never gave Lily and Jessi a heads up! And I really think she pushes way too much for the parasocial relationship with her viewers, telling time and time again to the camera how much she understands your pain and is sorry for you and blablabla, while talking about the most re traumatising topics on earth in gruesome detail. Like girl, stop praying on victims that are pre-therapy and feel lonely and isolated as fuck.
If someone goes on NBC and lies and ABC catches it and airs a story debunking them, ABC does not call NBC to give them a “heads up” first. They are colleagues, yes, but they are also competitors. It is extremely weird of y’all to try to hold Swoop to some journalistic standard literally no one practices because she’s a content creator and you don’t like her.
@@missliss2581able swoop and dwkt are not competitors, and none of them are journalists, what are you talking about
@@moustacheandnisiYes! “We are worthy!” Attempting to elicit cult-like chanting from her viewers is one of the most blatant acts of parasocial bonding & emotional blackmail I’ve seen from a tea channel. How many times does she ask the audience to relive the most traumatic day of their life? She needs the viewers to be overemotional because irrational people are easy to control.
When she brought up the subject of grooming, it was on the very first day that she opened her Cash-App wallet. It’s so problematic to play a victim for money after she made people too irrational to make financial decisions responsibly.
@@moustacheandnisi have you seen her newest merch with bunch of 'you're worthy' type texts on the back? lmao
I'm glad you brought this up. Swoop may have gotten carried away.
How
@@SullivanDLuffySwoop put so much attention and a longer part of the doc on Johnny than she did Colleen. It overshadowed the main point. Johnny needed to be included but to me, at a certain point she made him the center. I support the doc & MOST of what she said but don’t agree with every single thing. Jmo. I’m also not saying I agree with everything this creator is talking about either, but she’s the only person I’ve heard go against the status quo and simply address it. Jmo.
Thanks for sharing this. I have only watched one of Swoop's videos and I didn't like it. I felt like she had a strong bias that was clouding her perspective. She chose to believe some people uncritically and dismiss others without examining all the possible explanations and circumstances. I think the person she was "exposing" had done some things wrong, but they weren't a monster. Swoop seemed to want to construct a villain for an audience eager to devour one.
Apparently, she had some questionable takes on the Depp/Heard situation, too. I don't want to know what she said because that trial - and the response to it - still infuriates me. So many people decided to capitalize on misogyny and I fear Swoop was among them.
You’re the first person I agree with on this. Her vid was definitely overkill.
I honestly feel like Swoop wanted the interview with Josh, who has never really spoke out about Colleen, so she took Johnny down to get on Josh’s good side. I’m not saying Johnny isn’t scuzzy, but please, that video was a bit much. Sorry, just seems obvious.
She had already interviewed Josh, the lies Johnny told came to light first.
Swoop is huge right now deservedly so. Of course pple are gonna attach themselves to her name however desperately they can for views. And opposing her gets all views to either defend or agree. Small Influencer 101.
If I really wanted to do that, wouldn’t I pick the number one UA-camr? This was my opinion and you don’t have to agree, but the clout chasing argument is the easiest one in the book.
I agree. As useful as it was to shed light on Johnny's BS, something came across as contrived. Swoop monetises her victim status and weaponises it against unpopular victims - like Amber Heard. She has yet to apologise for that.
She insisted on her goal to give victims a voice, her compassionate persona etc, to the point that it became excessive. It dragged on and on. It became about her self-righteousness. Her tone and mannerisms were excessively affected at times.
Her audience keeps asking for the Joshua interview, teased for more than a month; at this point it seems like a tactic to build momentum. Sure, she has to "fact check" issues (if it's even possible), but I remember her churning out 10 videos on Amber in fairly rapid succession. Where was the fact checking then? I think it's a matter of deciding how best to milk each situation she covers.
Rubbish. Swoop did reaction videos about the Heard/Depp trial. Very little editing required and no need to fact check. So easily published quickly. Huge difference. All of Swoops deep dive videos take a month to create: research, fact check, gathering inserts and proof images, gathering appropriate B-roll, interviewing, organizing massive amounts of good or useless clips, writing and editing long scripts, filming, post production editing with massive amounts of layers, checking for blurring needs, securing sponsor approval, and more. You have no idea what you’re talking about, seriously. Neither does the owner of this heavily biased channel.
Whoa I think you are a bit confused. Adam was a victim and he was bullied by Johnny and Kodee and Colleen’s rabid fan base. His validity as a victim was only questioned before the truth was proven.
Do I believe that Johnny was never a victim no. I believe that Josh used him to handle his Sara Diculas account. For free. And I do believe it was inappropriate for Josh to give Johnny his number. And I believe that Colleen only paid Johnny for his time on stage. Only for a hour and a half 6 nights in a row and for 3 or 4 months. Not the travel time. Not the set up and breakdown. I believe Kory made him sleep on the bus. But not for accidentally locking him out of the room but because he took attention away from Kory. But… I don’t believe he was groomed. Used as free labor and then tossed aside yes.
I don’t believe anyone thinks that Johnny wasn’t taken advantage of. Josh having Johnny work for free and Colleen not paying Johnny fully is wrong and he was taken advantage of because he was a fan just trying to get in with his favorite creators.
But Johnny also did really creepy shady things with children in chats based on the fame he had. And Johnny invited a friend of his Tim who had allegations on him into groups with Johnnys fans.
And Swoop gave examples of situations of the victims she spoke with that didn’t want their names released or the situations to be fully exposed so they could be figured out and exposed. I don’t think she did anything wrong. She didn’t give names or examples close enough to make their identities public. If you talk to a discovery documentarian like Swoop it isn’t a secret that she will talk in general terms. Swoop didn’t give any identifying information. She didn’t take advantage of anyone. They contacted her. Swoop didn’t contact them.
And don’t take offense. But quit talking about situations that you don’t fully understand. And don’t talk about other people’s editing skills. You kept in all your drink sipping I don’t want to watch you constantly taking a drink. Edit them out. Swoop is a person who takes great pride in doing extensive research and she talks to everyone. She leaves no hints not fully investigated. If she needs people to elaborate she asks. Just like you said. You can’t say Josh did this. Without proof. So you say allegedly. Swoop isn’t going to state things as fact if she didn’t investigate it fully in every way first. No one is going to be able to hit her with a defamation lawsuit because if she makes a statement she knows it’s a fact and she won’t say it unless she does.
Yeah, so much pride that she hired someone else to do it…. 🙄
Unlike Swoop, I don’t have a team behind me. I do not have the ability to do all the research, editing, and interviewing Swoop does because I have a job outside of UA-cam and I go to school. I never said I was a great editor. The only reason I talked about the editing was because of it’s shock value.
@@cherrytwizzler
It’s called her team. She hired her team to help her. And Swoop tells her team what she needs them to research. I never said that she was the only person doing the work. Do you think that bigger investigation channels do all the research and checking and double checking and lighting, shooting, editing all themselves. No that’s not possible. Look at H3. He has a team and they all come under the name of H3. Just like Swoops team are all under the name of Swoop. Honestly you have to have a whole team to help put on a 2, 3, or 4 hour video. You wouldn’t expect Joe Rogan to do his 4 hour videos all himself? No you don’t.
But this woman is saying that Swoop didn’t do a lot of good work and that the job wasn’t done correctly.
She has the right to not like anyone’s video. But to say she didn’t do a proper job. Wasn’t right. Swoop and her team busted ass to make sure that she got all the facts correct and didn’t mislead or spread false information.
Where as the person who made this video said Adam had made false claims of abuse. And that he built his channel on lies or milking the situation. Adam stated at least 3 times that he would stop talking about Colleen when he got a apology from her. It never happened so he has every right to talk about what happened. Because he has the truth on his side. Johnny had the truth of the crappy things I think that happened but as far as the lies that are proven lies. Defending his actions completely discredit the actual victims and facts of the story’s. If Johnny hadn’t ever lied he would be in a position to build his channel exponentially. But he lied so now he is looking like a creep.
@@EricaMones
You don’t need a lot of money or time to investigate. But at least clarify that you’re on the correct path and not backing people who don’t deserve to be backed. You could of Googled and gotten more accurate information in just a few clicks of the mouse. Now you are backing up the wrong person and not caring about the right issues. It’s pretty clear that any documentary video maker that talks to any victim is going to put any content in that they want as long as they aren’t giving out the name or anything that’s indicating who the person is or where it took place or when. Just do a little more research to clarify that you aren’t buying something that is inaccurate information.
@@Idontwant1 I’m not backing Johnny at all.
As a past content creator on another platform I can absolutely say Josh groomed Johnny and all the other fans. The fact that they were minors is worse.
Josh and Colleen groomed their fans to keep the the views and clicks coming in. They were groomed to be consumers of merch.
So they tried to be be "friends" with thier fans to grow thier channel. They would invite their fans to come to shows, to chat in a groups, to defend the brand, etc.
This whole new parasocial element feeds the content creators of which can be for, or have bad intentions.
Was Johnny wrong for his own underage interactions, absolutely. Was he being groomed? Absolutely,
Yep VERY unpopular.
You’re allowed to feel that way.
@@EricaMones well yeah......
@@MissKrisss what was your point in writing this? You didn’t add to the conversation.
@EricaMones same point you have in writing THIS and she had in her "unpopular opinion" Good day . I'm not responding to you anymore
@@MissKrisss you realize I am she?
Swoop is honestly awful! Something is very off about her and none of this is out of good intentions!!!
WTF is wrong with you