>>5828975https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRGbhWR_V9Y&lc=UgweM-RfbPcfr4NvclR4AaABAgthe above link highlights a specific comment on the video. you'll notice that it and its first two replies are six months old, like the video itself.
the commenter asks *who* sang the outro, the first reply says "check the description", and the op responds by saying he missed the link at first glance. the op does not say anything about the description not having the answer he wanted, so he almost definitely got a satisfactory answer.
the current links in the video's description don't credit anyone, only linking the original song.
the two other replies, both months later, imply that the information op wanted is not present in the description, clearly indicating that the description was changed.
all other comments asking about the outro have no replies. this is the first video with the changed outro and sodafunk was already really popular at this point, so there should be comments asking this question that have several likes. the only possibility is that these more popular comments were all removed, because the replies gave real answers.
it's pretty obvious that sodafunk deleted all comments that name-dropped the singer. most of the comments probably had replies that were more helpful than just "check the description", after all. it's reasonable for a single incriminating comment to have been missed from human error, especially since it doesn't explicitly mention the singer's name or anything about fiverr.
should be enough proof for all the autists who need to be spoonfed. i even put line breaks and used simple sentences to help make up for your reading comprehension issues. feel free to email me if you don't understand any of the big words like "imply", "incriminating" or "obvious".
