Manipulation leaves fingerprints.

Decipon makes them visible.

The Influence Tactics Protocol (ITP) is an open standard published by Decipon that scores digital content across 20 categories of psychological manipulation on a 0–100 scale, with evidence per category.

Not a fact-checker. Not a truth oracle. A tactics lens.

Or mention @decipon on X to analyze any tweet

Building with it? Manipulation detection API — curl & OpenAPI in 30 seconds

Here's what you'll see

Every analysis returns a detailed influence tactics score with evidence for each finding.

Example analysis

“Nation faces unprecedented crisis as officials urge immediate action”

Opinion column · National News Wire

MODERATE Influence Tactics Score

68% confidence

Emotional Manipulation 3.8/5

Missing Information 3.1/5

Tribal Division 2.4/5

Suspicious Timing 1.6/5

Uniform Messaging 1.2/5

“Act now before it’s too late” — urgency tactic identified in 4 of 8 paragraphs

Sources cited without verifiable links; key opposing viewpoints omitted

Perspectives

Balanced

Synthesis Critical Supportive

Both perspectives agree: urgency tactics are present, but the core claims align with available data. The elevated score reflects persuasion technique density, not factual inaccuracy.

Scores range from 0 (minimal tactics) to 100 (heavy use). Learn how scoring works

How it works

Step 1

Paste a URL

Enter any article, post, or text you want to analyze.

Step 2

Analyze 20 categories

Decipon analyzes emotional manipulation, logical fallacies, tribal framing, and more.

Step 3

Read with clarity

Get a scored report with evidence, plus alternative perspectives that weigh the findings from critical and supportive angles. You decide what it means.

See both sides of every finding

A score alone is not enough. Every analysis includes a Perspectives panel that examines the content from opposing angles—so you can form your own judgment.

Critical

Assumes the content is using influence tactics. Looks for emotional manipulation, omitted context, and persuasion patterns—the strongest case for skepticism.

Supportive

Assumes the content is authentic and well-intentioned. Highlights verifiable sources, fair framing, and legitimate rhetorical choices—the strongest case for trust.

Synthesis

Weighs both perspectives to produce a balanced reading. Identifies where the critical and supportive views agree, where they diverge, and what to investigate further.

Most tools give you a score and a verdict.
Decipon gives you the structured debate—and lets you be the judge.

Why a tactics lens

The techniques are old.
The volume is new.

Persuasion has always leaned on the same handful of techniques—emotional framing, urgency, repetition, in-group appeals, selective context. What has changed is the volume: there is far more persuasive content, produced far faster, than anyone has time to read closely. Fact-checking asks whether a claim is true. Sentiment analysis measures tone. Decipon asks a third question—which of these techniques a given text is using, and where—and shows you the evidence so you can weigh it yourself.

Information integrity

Transparent, evidence-based scoring reveals influence techniques without censorship. Like a nutrition label for content—you see the ingredients and decide what to consume.

Institutional transparency

Structural patterns become visible and trackable. Readers, journalists, and researchers can document how influence campaigns operate across sources and over time.

Civic resilience

The more people who can name these techniques, the less reliably they work. Widespread pattern-literacy raises the cost of running an influence campaign—without removing or labelling anyone's content.

Rather than telling you what's true, Decipon reveals how content tries to influence you—empowering you to recognize patterns and decide for yourself.

Explore the 20-category methodology →

Who it's for

Different audiences, same principle: see the tactics, decide for yourself.

Readers

Verify before you share. See influence patterns in news, social media, and opinion pieces.

Journalists

Systematically analyze sources. Identify influence tactics in press releases and statements.

Researchers

Quantify manipulation at scale. Use the API to analyze datasets across sources and time periods.

Organizations

Monitor content credibility across channels. Integrate scoring into editorial and compliance workflows.

Common questions

How accurate is the analysis?

Each analysis includes a confidence score that indicates how certain the system is about its findings. Decipon uses a combination of machine learning models and linguistic analysis across 20 categories. Scores reflect the presence of influence tactics, not whether content is true or false.

Can I trust the results?

Decipon is transparent by design. Every score is backed by specific evidence from the text—highlighted passages, quoted phrases, and pattern descriptions. You can see exactly why content scored the way it did and evaluate the reasoning yourself.

What if I disagree with a score?

That's expected and welcome. A high score doesn't mean content is wrong—legitimate persuasion, opinion writing, and advocacy may score high without being deceptive. The score is a prompt to look closer, not a verdict. Community validation helps improve accuracy over time.

What content can I analyze?

Any publicly accessible text content: news articles, blog posts, press releases, opinion pieces, social media threads, and more. Paste a URL or use the browser extension to analyze pages as you browse.

Is my content stored or shared?

Analysis results are cached to serve repeat requests efficiently, but the original content is not stored long-term. We do not track what you analyze, share your queries with third parties, or build profiles of your reading habits. See our privacy policy for details.

See the tactics, not just the content.

Analyze any URL—no signup required.