April 8, 2026
On April 8, Cat (@Plunger_Woman) posted publicly about having been part of a call with Inviz and Adam Goodman involving six Skibidi Toilet community members. The purpose of the call was for Adam to answer questions about the situation and share information. The post described two significant requirements that Inviz had attached to be able to join the call: participants were required to submit their full names and have cameras on throughout.
Adam Goodman had initially asked participants to agree not to share any video or audio of the call. All participants verbally agreed to this request at the beginning of the call. Adam also said Inviz would not share it.
Before the call, Inviz’s senior vice president (Austin) told participants they could share information from the call, but could not share “excerpts or selective accounts” of the discussion that misrepresents it. Participants consented to the call being recorded for internal records only. Austin specifically stated the call was “not intended for public distribution.”
The call took place on March 30. Afterward, Cat asked for clarification on being able to share information from the call. She received an email response from Austin, who said any information shared from the call required Inviz’s approval before it could be paraphrased publicly.
The stated consequence for sharing information that Inviz determined was “misleading or out of context” was that they would leak the entire call video. This is a recording that includes participants’ names and faces.
Since Inviz initially requested that the call not be shared, it came as a surprise when they threatened to leak it. After Cat made this post on Twitter, Iron Cameraman responded, stating that he was planning to make a Youtube video about the call, but the video’s release would be delayed as he did not want Alexey’s personal information or the participants’ personal information leaked because of him. Iron Cameraman was also a participant of the call.
Adam Goodman responded to Iron’s repost of Cat’s tweet. He said: “So you’re saying you’d rather ‘tell’ your audience what happened on the call, as opposed to letting them watch it? We show facts, you hide.”
Adam Goodman made several other replies to people on Twitter on April 8 hinting that he wanted to share the call or suggesting that participants should share it.
When Cat pointed out that Inviz had requested that the call not be shared, Adam Goodman responded by talking about how Iron Cameraman was shown test footage of the Michael Bay Skibidi Toilet short film, and later criticised it publicly. Iron (Ogannes) had described what happened in the test footage and recreated its look from memory using AI as a visual aid.
Some fans interpreted this response as Goodman justifying his desire to leak something without permission by suggesting that Iron had also shared things without permission.
Before this point, neither Austin nor Adam said they would redact faces or names. On April 9, TheDarkVoid (@MusakharAli) pushed back, pointing out that Goodman was “attempting to leak people’s private info.” Goodman replied, stating the threat directly:
“There’s a recording of the call and if it’s reported unfairly we will release the unedited call to correct confusions with faces redacted.”
This clarified that they would not share the faces of participants. However, Adam did not say they would not share the full names of participants. Many in the Skibidi fandom prefer to keep their full names private. Participants have not heard whether Adam would redact their names if Inviz shares the call.
Adam also did not address the issue of sharing the call without participants’ permission.
Participants of the call only gave consent for the call to be recorded for internal records, not for the call to be shared publicly. Adam Goodman said nothing about asking participants for permission to share the call. In general, sharing a call publicly without permission from all participants is legally questionable. Inviz is located in California, which is an all-party consent state.
For more information and proof of alleged threats behind the scenes, please contact Cat and/or Iron Cameraman. All contact info is available on the Contact Page.
Ibio75 (@ibio75), who had been on a separate earlier call with Goodman, posted on April 9 responding to the same exchange. He accused Goodman of threatening “a person with leaking their face without their consent, as well as their voice,” and noted that Goodman had made the same threat to him, despite Ibio having made clear from the start of his own call that he did not consent to his face being shown.
Ibio drew a parallel to Adam’s treatment of creators: “If he treats people like this publicly, imagine how he must have treated the creator of the series in private.“
Goodman replied again, stating he would not publish anyone’s face without consent and describing the call recording as made “with full disclosure, including an interpreter.” He argued that participants were asking the public to rely on their paraphrasing rather than an accurate, unedited record.
Goodman listed a series of accusations against the BringBoomBack community, including circulating contracts and private company information, sending what he described as harassing material, and using Inviz’s IP without permission. Goodman also pointed out that Youtubers have used photos of his face in videos. However, Goodman is a public figure, and using photos of public figures for news purposes is generally widely acceptable in the U.S.
The core tension remained obvious, Inviz required participants to identify themselves by name and face as a condition of attending, recorded the call with that knowledge, and then stated publicly that the recording could be released, with redactions, if they judged the call to be reported unfairly. The definition of “unfair reporting” remained Inviz’s to determine. Ibio had separately been asked by Goodman as early as April 5 whether it was acceptable to release the video of their own private call.
It is also worth noting that Inviz’s own evidence, shared during these calls, included material containing Alexey’s personal contact information.
Given that, the reliability of their stated redaction process is difficult to assess from the outside.
Iron Cameraman Shares Messages From Alexey Showing Early 2024 Trust In Inviz
With Inviz’s release of Alexey’s private business messages now public, Iron Cameraman published a detailed response on April 8. Iron had been on the recent call with Inviz on March 30. After the call, he received evidence from his sources that contained enough material to “tear apart every piece of evidence they showed.”
He was clear that he could not publish all of this private evidence without endangering those who provided it, but said he was exploring ways to verify its existence for viewers, including sharing it with a trusted community figure whose public track record for objectivity could serve as independent confirmation.
The most significant new primary material in the video was a pair of screenshots from May 21, 2024, shared by Iron for the first time. The first is a message from a creator warning Alexey directly about Inviz’ early copyright registrations. The creator had obtained a copy of the filing and pointed out that Inviz had registered Skibidi Toilet as their own, with Alexey’s name absent from both the authorship field and the trademark documents, and described this as “kind of scary,” warning that these documents existed independently of any private agreements between the parties and could not be nullified by them.
Alexey’s reply, sent the same afternoon, explains why he was not alarmed at the time. He described Inviz as connected to “very highly respected people,” cited the company’s closeness to Mr. Beast representatives as the central reason to trust them, and noted that he “can’t do shit in USA yet” because of ongoing immigration difficulties. From where he was living, he wrote, there was little more he could do.
This exchange matters in two directions. It supported Iron’s argument that name-dropping may have functioned as a trust-building mechanism, Alexey himself names those associations as his primary reason for confidence in the company. It also provides context for one of Inviz’s own pieces of evidence from their April 4, 2026, statement, a screenshot showing Boom delegating strike decisions to Inviz without a whitelist, from around the same period, in April 2024. Iron’s reading of that screenshot is that it reflects deference under trust rather than a considered policy position, and Alexey’s words from the next month support that reading. In Iron’s interpretation, Alexey was not endorsing a strike philosophy. Rather, he was delegating to people he had been given substantial reason to believe were acting in the franchise’s best interests.
April 12
Iron Cameraman Interviews DoorCloser
On April 9, Iron emailed the DoorCloser channel’s public contact address with eight questions about the channel and its upcoming series. DoorCloser replied the same day, signed “3pcat.”
Iron shared the exchange publicly in a video published on April 12.
The Q&A does not confirm Alexey’s direct involvement in the channel’s current content. The answers, particularly the description of DoorCloser as Alexey’s original Russian 2012 channel and the phrase “just a person who knows him very well”, are consistent with community readings of the situation, but that inference remains unconfirmed.
April 15
LetBoomSpeak Begins
On April 15, Iron published a video formally launching the Let Boom Speak initiative under the hashtag #LetBoomSpeak. The video refocused on the central problem: as long as Alexey remains under NDA and contractual restrictions, any evidence released will only ever reflect one party’s framing. New statements from Inviz, partial contract disclosures, and creator calls with selectively shared screenshots all have the same structural limitation – they are controlled releases. Alexey’s own perspective, unfiltered, has not entered the public record.
Iron’s proposal was specific. He called on Inviz to draft a written document, signed by all necessary parties, granting Alexey the right to make a single public statement, in his own words, without prior approval, without their editorial control, and without any contractual penalties applying to that statement. The document would need to temporarily suspend confidentiality restrictions, non-disparagement clauses, and any other terms that would otherwise prevent him from speaking freely about the contract, the franchise, working conditions, finances, or creative control.
To ground the argument, Iron cited Steven Asarch’s on-record comments made in a public interview with Taylor Lorenz, that Alexey had sought “quote approval” for everything he said because “everything he says has to be buttoned up,” and that the contracts between the parties prevented both sides from speaking about the other. He set this directly against Inviz’s repeated claim that Alexey is free to speak, and against their position on the creator call that the community should simply ask Alexey directly what he thinks. Both claims, Iron argued, cannot simultaneously be true.
Iron announced a day counter, committing to release videos tracking the initiative until Inviz responded. He was explicit that he was not demanding Alexey speak, only that the restrictions be formally removed. If Alexey then chose not to say anything, that would be his decision. He framed the ask as narrow enough that even those hostile to the broader Bring Boom Back movement could support it. One unfiltered statement from the person at the centre of everything.
He closed with a direct appeal to viewers to spread the hashtag calmly and without aggression, and pointed them to Asarch’s interview with Taylor Lorenz for additional context.