Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

15
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
76% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Ulrik on X

Rent sammelsurium inte ett sant ord, mao rent hittepå

Posted by Ulrik
View original →

Perspectives

Blue Team's higher-confidence assessment (88%) portrays the content as authentic casual dismissal in Swedish social media style, outweighing Red Team's lower-confidence (42%) identification of mild biased framing and fallacies; overall, it leans toward organic opinion with minimal manipulation risk.

Key Points

  • Both teams agree on absence of strong manipulation markers like urgency, emotion, or coordination, classifying it as non-sophisticated.
  • Red Team highlights biased pejorative language and unsupported assertions as mild manipulation, while Blue Team views them as proportionate casual skepticism.
  • Unique colloquial Swedish phrasing supports Blue's organic authorship claim over Red's fallacy concerns.
  • No factual claims require verification, reducing manipulation potential per Blue, though Red notes omission of context.
  • Low overall suspicion aligns with isolated reply format.

Further Investigation

  • Full conversation thread and the specific 'target' content being dismissed for context on proportionality.
  • Author's posting history to check for patterns of similar dismissals or coordination.
  • Any metrics on amplification, shares, or trends around this reply.
  • Translation verification and cultural norms for such dismissive Swedish slang in online discourse.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
No presentation of only two extreme options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
Subtle us-vs-them in dismissing quoted content but not strongly polarized.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
Simplistic good-vs-evil framing by labeling target as pure falsehood ('inte ett sant ord, rent hittepå').
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic as an isolated reply on Jan 10, 2026; no correlation with major events or historical disinformation patterns per web/X searches.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to known propaganda techniques or campaigns; searches found no parallels.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No clear beneficiaries; random user tweet with no ties to politicians, companies, or campaigns evident in searches.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No suggestions of widespread agreement or 'everyone knows' claims.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No pressure for change or manufactured momentum; isolated post with no trends or amplification detected in searches.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique phrasing in a single post; no coordination or identical messaging across sources per X/web searches.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Dismisses content as false ('rent hittepå') without evidence or reasoning, implying hasty generalization.
Authority Overload 1/5
No citations of experts or authorities.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
No data presented at all, selective or otherwise.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Biased loaded language like 'sammelsurium' (hodgepodge) and 'hittepå' (made-up) frames target negatively as incoherent invention.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No negative labeling of critics or dissenters.
Context Omission 4/5
Crucial context omitted: unclear what 'sammelsurium' refers to without the reply chain.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' events; straightforward dismissal.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional triggers; single instance of dismissive language.
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
Dismissive phrasing like 'inte ett sant ord' shows mild frustration but tied to opinion, not disconnected from facts.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No calls for action; content is purely a dismissal without any demands.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
Mildly dismissive tone with phrases like 'rent sammelsurium' and 'rent hittepå' evokes slight contempt but no strong fear, outrage, or guilt.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Appeal to fear-prejudice Name Calling, Labeling Reductio ad hitlerum Doubt
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else