The Verge⁠71%

Spider-Man: Brand New Day leak racks up millions of views ⁠46%

By Terrence O'Brien⁠74%

8/1/2026, 10:00:12 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 27.6% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 426 faulty-reasoning hits from 203 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠46% (14,376 of 26,397 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.50% of the article peer group.

A bootleg of Spider-Man: Brand New Day was up on X for over seven hours before eventually being pulled. 
During that time, it reached over 5.9 million accounts and accumulated over 143,000 likes. 
Other accounts have reposted the leaked film, but none have lasted particularly long, as Disney now seems to be on top of issuing takedown requests. 
The leak is unlikely to slow down the box office juggernaut, which is already shattering records. 
It raked in $72 million in previews this week. 
The previous record holder was Avengers: Endgame, which grossed $60 million during its previews way back in 2019. 
Endgame went on to set staggering records for opening weekend, grossing over $1.2 billion worldwide and over $350 million in the US. 
Spider-Man: No Way Home currently holds the number two spot on the all-time US opening weekend list with $260 million. 
Brand New Day could potentially usurp Endgame, though it certainly faces an uphill battle. 
Between previews and opening day, it’s already grossed $168 million, which puts it ahead of Endgame’s $157.4 million. 
Sony is keeping its estimates somewhat conservative, saying it expects the latest Spider-Man to pull in $325 million. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.2%Terrence O'Brien: 3.9%The Verge: 3.1%Confirmation Bias21.2%This article: 27.6%Terrence O'Brien: 1.7%The Verge: 1.4%Anchoring Bias27.6%This article: 11.8%Terrence O'Brien: 3.4%The Verge: 3.3%Availability Heuristic11.8%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.8%The Verge: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.9%The Verge: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Terrence O'Brien: 0.8%The Verge: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias8.9%This article: 4.4%Terrence O'Brien: 8.9%The Verge: 5.3%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.9%The Verge: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.9%Terrence O'Brien: 0.4%The Verge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.3%The Verge: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%Terrence O'Brien: 2.2%The Verge: 3.8%Optimism Bias7.9%This article: 6.9%Terrence O'Brien: 1.7%The Verge: 2.1%Pessimism Bias6.9%This article: 26.6%Terrence O'Brien: 11.0%The Verge: 8.4%Negativity Bias26.6%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.8%The Verge: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.3%The Verge: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.3%The Verge: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.6%The Verge: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.3%The Verge: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Terrence O'Brien: 2.5%The Verge: 2.5%Halo Effect10.8%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.5%The Verge: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.3%The Verge: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Terrence O'Brien: 0.8%The Verge: 0.4%Primacy Effect10.8%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 2.9%The Verge: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.8%The Verge: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.9%Terrence O'Brien: 5.3%The Verge: 3.3%Appeal to Authority8.9%This article: 6.9%Terrence O'Brien: 1.0%The Verge: 1.6%False Dilemma6.9%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.4%The Verge: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.4%The Verge: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.9%Terrence O'Brien: 5.4%The Verge: 6.1%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.3%The Verge: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.1%The Verge: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 5.6%The Verge: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.3%The Verge: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.3%Terrence O'Brien: 3.2%The Verge: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.3%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.2%The Verge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.4%The Verge: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.2%The Verge: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.9%Terrence O'Brien: 2.4%The Verge: 3.4%Anecdotal6.9%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 2.3%The Verge: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.2%The Verge: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.2%The Verge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.9%Terrence O'Brien: 2.8%The Verge: 2.3%Unattributed Quote8.9%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 2.4%The Verge: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.3%Terrence O'Brien: 10.4%The Verge: 9.5%Biased Writer Voice12.3%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.7%The Verge: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 2.9%The Verge: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 3.1%The Verge: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

203 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.9%attributed speech185writer words
Selected voice

Sony

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sony: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%Sony: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.