1. Is ‘Social Media Monster’ a documentary or mockumentary? It is a factual documentary, meticulously researched and documented – backed up by witness testimony, documents from court records, police reports, and social media posts and websites, archived at the time of the events depicted in the film from 2018-2020. The story defies sanity, but it’s entirely true.

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

  1. If all Matthew Berdyck wants is attention, isn’t the documentary giving him what he wants? We have to weigh “feeding the troll” versus having the victims and targets voices getting heard and the latter always comes out on top. People who have been affected and damaged have gotten no justice via law enforcement, the courts, or social media companies. This documentary is for them. It’s their story and they deserve to be heard.
  1. Was the woman physically assaulted at the IHOP incident in 2018? No one knows if she was ever physically assaulted. The complete police reports confirm, and no one denies there was a VERBAL altercation between the couple. No one other than Matthew makes the claim of physical violence between the man and woman. Matthew’s own account has varied greatly over the years, changing from punching to choking. The producers concede the woman from the couple MAY have been assaulted, but we will never know because Matthew is an unreliable witness. The police interviewed over a dozen eye witnesses, none confirmed Matthew’s claims. Rachel Haynor, the IHOP manager on duty stated in the film and consistently says she relayed on the 911 call what Matthew told her and that she nor anyone else witnessed the physical violence. This is an archive of Matthew’s iPhone video from that night, unedited https://preservetube.com/watch?v=hxPNm_hq9cA 
  1. Is there a Tier III sex offender as a source for the documentary? No. Mr. Berdyck makes this ridiculous claim repeatedly, even after a defamation lawsuit was won against his LLC for similar false allegations. This appears to be in reference to Scumbagged.com and the alleged owner. No proof that the person Matthew claims owns the site has been provided. Plus, the source from Scumbagged.com to the production was a woman who wishes to remain anonymous. We never spoke to any male person at Scumbagged.com. This false and defamatory accusation will soon be a part of a new defamation lawsuit in 2024 against Matthew Berdyck personally. This is a link to the article regarding nuclear threats: https://scumbagged.com/2018/10/14/breaking-news-environmental-activist-who-threatened-terrorist-acts-heading-towards-perry-nuclear-power-plant-lake-county-ohio/ 
  1. Were the threats to commit acts of terrorism at a nuclear power facility real? Yes. The emails were sent not only to Scumbagged.com, but the FBI, local media, police, and politicians. The complete emails are included on this Google Drive. As noted in the film, the email address used was the same email Matthew used for all of the communications with the city of St. Joseph that he admitted to. Matthew Berdyck seems to think it is believable that every time he breaks the law in an email, he was “hacked” and that simply is not credible as an excuse. Matthew claims, sans any evidence, that the FBI and law enforcement determined it was a hoax. The FBI did not determine this was a hoax and the investigation was presented to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio in 2019. The North Perry Police department also does not confirm these email threats were a hoax. Anyone can email or call the North Perry Police chief@northperry.org 440-259-5016

    The FBI investigated this matter. The redacted FBI files are here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1i9qnncPk3_EzQ4d2gZgYWRXG90txiiTI?usp=drive_link and they correspond with the emails that were not redacted from the St. Joseph City obtained via a Sunshine request for public documents here and the FBI agents in St. Joseph, Missouri interviewed Matthew Berdyck himself, as confirmed by Matthew himself in the documentary.

    As further evidence the FBI interviewed Peter John Ross in person in November of 2018, Ross took this selfie photo in the lobby of the Cleveland FBI office. No one can enter the outer perimeter or enter the building without an appointment. The building is secure and it would be impossible to gain access without an invite.

    Mr. Ross personally spoke with FBI agents in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Sacramento offices that confirm open investigations into Matthew Berdyck. Two of those phone calls are documented in the FBI files above. The rest can be obtained via FOIA requests with the FBI.

    The nuclear threats were not fabricated by the production of the film or Peter John Ross
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15jbVDLYVCQrri_MZE4_qmKaZfFlQDdco?usp=drive_link
  1. Was the regional Emmy nominated PBS series “Framelines” canceled because of Matthew Berdyck? Yes. Singularly, the only complaints WOSU and the Ohio Channel ever received were from Matthew Berdyck from 2014-2018. Matthew made false allegations and threatened to run campaigns that they supported pedophiles. Programming at the Ohio Channel decided to cancel Framelines rather than continue to receive harassing communication from Matthew Berdyck, as was relayed to the creators of Framelines in 2018 by the program director on the phone.
  1. Does Matthew Berdyck emulate the nearly identical behavior exhibited in Social Media Monster, sending dozens of harassing emails to podcasters, film reviewers, critics, streaming companies and sites as his defense about how he is portrayed in the documentary? Yes. It is the most bizarre defense against accusations of being a cyber-troll and cyber-terrorist to troll and terrorize film critics and streamers whilst denying he does these things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s45Ed3hCM0
  1. Why doesn’t Social Media Monster tell the audience that Matthew Berdyck is an activist/Why does the film not portray his activism work? Matthew Berdyck is not an activist, although we do include him making that claim himself in the first 10 minutes of the documentary. There is no known activism during the time period of July 2018-February 2019 that the film covers. At the time, Matthew ran an “organization” called SuperfundResearch.org – which was a sole proprietorship formed in Oregon, defunct in 2019 according to the Oregon Secretary of State. By 2020, Matthew could not afford the hosting and lost the website and domain name for SuperFundResearch.org. He then founded “ToxicWasteSite.org” which is not incorporated anywhere in the United States, although it was listed as a holding of Matthew Berdyck LLC and at one point in time, Matthew recorded audio stating that ToxicWasteSites.org was a legal asset/subsidiary of Matthew Berdyck LLC. There is no organization by any legal definition. There are no other known members or a board of directors or even a filing with any state that “ToxicWasteSites.org” is a legal entity. 
    There is no mention of “ToxicWasteSites.org” in the documentary Social Media Monster because the website did not exist until 2021, long after the events of the film and it is not an actual organization or legal entity. 
  1. Did Matthew Berdyck threaten to take his own life to Amazon Prime Video? Yes. He verbally stated in audio on X-Spaces in May of 2024 and he wrote it publicly that he was at a high risk of suicide if they released Social Media Monster, then subsequently deleted the tweet on May 25th, 2024. Amazon Prime Video subsequently did not release Social Media Monster.
  1. Did Matthew Berdyck get evicted from his condo in Des Moines, Iowa before the events of Social Media Monster and do the texts to Austin Goacher prove he got the apartment in St. Joseph, Missouri to match his furniture? Yes. Matthew states he owned a condominium in Des Moines and that he was not evicted, that he had some kind of agreement with the management to leave and the eviction was a formality. This is demonstrably False. Court records show that Matthew did not own the space, it was a rental unit from a management company and that they sought an eviction for non-payment. The company, 12th Street Lofts LLC filed the eviction with forcible entry for back rent totaling over $1,900 and eventually took Matthew to small claims court to try to obtain over $2,000 for breaking his lease. No agreement with 12th Street Lofts LLC exists according to all of their records. As for Austin Goacher’s opinion that Matthew picked St. Joseph out of a hat to cause chaos, that is his opinion regardless of what Matthew texted to him. He has a first amendment right to state why he believes Matthew moved there and texts only prove what Matthew said, apparently not convincingly. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cEABCuz4wRNS9OBe80Z8AvyeE6upc3ja?usp=drive_link 
  1. Where is the “racism scandal” involving the city council of St. Joseph? Matthew’s need to discredit anyone in the film lead to Berdyck referring to an incident where a city councilman, not the one interviewed in the documentary, had a ‘black face scandal’ as reported by the Associated Press. Former city councilman Brian Myers went to a Halloweed party dressed as Colonel Sanders with an African American friend dressed as a slave. Brian publicly apologized for the racially insensitive behavior in his past. None of this has any bearing on the story in Social Media Monster. Since this was nearly a decade before the events depicted in the documentary, the controversy seems to be Mr. Berdyck denigrating anyone who stood up to his online bullying and attacks. There is a world of difference between being racist and racial insensitivity. 
  1. Is Social Media Monster a political attack film funded by the City of St. Joseph? No. Social Media Monster was not funded by anyone in St. Joseph and there are no ties to the government or any agencies, nor did anyone have any editorial input into the film. 
  1. Was Social Media Monster funded by the police and is it a ‘Blue Lives Matter’ propaganda film? No. A retired police officer named Ernest Halcon, Jr. donated a small sum of money to a GoFundMe for the film in 2021 and his support earned him a co-executive producer credit. The film and filmmakers take no position on the police department or their actions in St. Joseph, Missouri. 
  1. Were the initial police reports discredited? No. The St. Joseph Police reports found here have not been discredited. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1OC_gwafqrUsrBoegYRXwHy1ae-QAKImZ?usp=drive_link
  1. Why doesn’t Social Media Monster share Matthew Berdyck’s side of the story? It does. Matthew Berdyck’s point of view is expressed repeatedly throughout the film in the form of his own audio and video, culled from many hundreds of hours of content Berdyck created. Matthew was offered more than once to participate directly via interviews and he demanded $500,000.00 in compensation. Matthew Berdyck makes many claims his clips are played out of context or manipulatively edited. Matthew is more than capable of releasing or making public the entire clips and showing the context. 
  1. Did Matthew Berdyck expose the Flint Water Crisis? No. Pediatrician Mona Hannah-Attisha is acknowledged by everyone as the singular person most responsible for exposing the Flint Water Crisis. Matthew made claims about the Region 5 EPA in relation to Akron, Ohio and the Summit Supplies superfund site. Never once did Berdyck mention Michigan or the water in Flint prior to the story becoming public in 2015-2016. Matthew cannot provide any documentation or witnesses that state he exposed the Flint Water Crisis.
    https://nihrecord.nih.gov/2021/04/30/pediatrician-who-uncovered-flint-water-crisis-recounts-experience 
  1. Was Matthew Berdyck’s net worth ever $2.6 million dollars? No. Matthew Berdyck collected Social Security Disability and did not have any income that did not originate from Alex Hwang during the time period of July 2018-February 2019. Even the investment into Wandering Plains Wagyu was funded by Alex’s money. No documentation, bank statements, or W2, W9 or tax records have ever been provided to contradict this from Matthew Berdyck or any of his alleged companies, “organizations”, etc. 
  1. Is Social Media Monster a personal attack on Matthew Berdyck or a biography of a living person? No. The film documents what Matthew Berdyck said and did in St. Joseph. Since the film was released, Matthew has attacked film critics, podcasters, and just people who support the film. It’s all documented here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s45Ed3hCM0
Unknown's avatar

Published by sonnyboo

I make movies, TV shows, and I write. I love telling stories in a variety of mediums.

Leave a comment