Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

39
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
61% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ on X

“SCREWED.” That’s the word a sitting U.S. President just used to describe what happens if the Supreme Court rules against him on Wednesday. “Almost impossible for our Country to pay.” $250 billion in forced refunds. “Trillions” in damage claims. His entire tariff policy ruled… pic.twitter.com/yrQrzx

Posted by Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
Hints at all-or-nothing outcome ('His entire tariff policy ruled' unconstitutional) but not rigidly two options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
Pits 'our Country' against potential Supreme Court ruling 'against him', fostering us-vs.-them tension between executive and judiciary.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
Reduces complex tariff legality to binary disaster if ruled unconstitutional, with president’s blunt language signaling authenticity.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Appears organic, posted January 13 ahead of Supreme Court’s January 14 opinion release on tariffs as confirmed by Reuters and BBC; no correlations to unrelated events like immigration protests.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No similarities to documented psyops or disinformation; reflects routine political defense of policy seen in prior Trump tariff disputes.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Bolsters Trump’s tariff policy benefiting his administration and MAGA supporters; aligns with sovereignty themes of poster @shanaka86, echoed by White House and Newsmax without paid promotion evidence.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of universal agreement; presents isolated presidential worry and prediction markets without broad consensus pressure.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
Posts clustered January 12-13 reacting to Trump’s statement with moderate likes/views; no astroturfing or bot signs, just natural event-driven discussion.
Phrase Repetition 4/5
Repeats verbatim Trump phrases like “SCREWED”, $250 billion refunds, “Trillions” across White House, AFP, Newsmax posts same day, indicating shared sourcing from his Truth Social.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Emotional appeal via “SCREWED” and assumes president's rare word use proves validity; hasty generalization on worry level.
Authority Overload 1/5
Relies solely on unnamed president without additional experts or credentials.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
Highlights high-end estimates ($250 billion, “Trillions”) and dramatic quotes while ignoring balanced revenue or economic analyses.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Loaded terms like “SCREWED” in caps, ellipses for suspense, and image amplify catastrophe; 'sitting U.S. President' anonymizes to heighten drama.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention or labeling of critics, challenges, or opposing views.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits tariff legal basis (IEEPA national security), challengers' arguments, actual refund precedents, and Treasury's milder assessments.
Novelty Overuse 3/5
Frames president's use of “SCREWED” as rare ('Presidents don’t use that word publicly unless they’re genuinely worried') and cites '72% chance' prediction markets to heighten shock value.
Emotional Repetition 2/5
Mild repetition of catastrophic terms like “SCREWED” and massive financial losses, but not overly insistent.
Manufactured Outrage 3/5
Amplifies outrage via president's blunt “SCREWED” and dire predictions, somewhat detached from verified refund mechanics.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No explicit demands for viewer action; merely notes '48 hours' countdown without pressuring response.
Emotional Triggers 4/5
Employs fear language like “SCREWED” and “Almost impossible for our Country to pay” paired with exaggerated figures of $250 billion refunds and “Trillions” in damage claims to stoke national peril.

Identified Techniques

Name Calling, Labeling Doubt Reductio ad hitlerum Exaggeration, Minimisation Bandwagon

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else