Do we like them?

Would we support them? Type any of these:

You get the goss with a verdict, a score out of 10, and the sources to check us.

Do we like Stephanie Soo?

Our score: 6 out of 10. Clean on harm and no court trouble found, but the reporting is thin and true crime for profit has its critics.

Stephanie Soo is a Korean American creator from Atlanta who started on YouTube in 2017 with mukbang eating videos. She wove true crime stories into the food content, and that odd combination turned into Rotten Mango, the podcast and channel that made her a name. She's a long way from the screen-eating days now.

The main stoush on her record is an old one. In December 2019 she posted a video alleging that fellow YouTuber Nikocado Avocado drew her into his feud with another creator and took photos of her house, and she said it left her feeling unsafe. He called the claims “100% fabricated and a total hit job”, so it's her word against his, and she is the one making the claim, not the one accused.

She became the main behind-the-scenes voice on the Diddy trial in 2025, posting daily updates from the New York courtroom while cameras were banned. She describes her role as a “translator between the courtroom and the everyday audience” and says she's not a journalist. Critics have worried about influencers blurring fact and opinion, though she was also praised for being open about that line.

On the harm test, honestly, there's not much to report. Searches for anything she's said or done against LGBTQ+ people, women, migrants, vaccines or the climate came up with nothing from credible outlets. That's an absence of evidence rather than a deep character reference, so call it a pass on what we could find.

On the nice test, no lawsuits, convictions or credible allegations against her turned up. Her audience is mostly young women, and the show reportedly donates a portion of each episode's revenue to the Joyful Heart Foundation and Sanctuary for Families, which support survivors of abuse. That's real good, though it comes from a marketing piece rather than a charity announcement.

So where do we land? She's a big, popular creator with no sign of harm and some good works behind her, but the public record is light and mostly flattering. We'd happily say yes, with the usual true crime asterisk hanging in the air.

Queue a list of names

One name per line (or split with commas), up to 100 at a time. They're checked a few at a time in the background and land on the scoreboard as they finish. Names already on the board are skipped.

Suggest names

Add names here for the team to review: famous people, characters or companies, one per line (up to 20). We check the ones we pick, and they land on the scoreboard.

Suggested names

Loading…

See what's in line

Loading…

The scoreboard

Everyone checked so far, by score, 10 at the top. Typing a name up top filters the board too. Tap a score to see who's there, and a name for the whole card.

Loading…

Our take, from what the sources we read say on the day we checked. It can miss things; tap a source to read it.