Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

10
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
73% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Fabrizio Rinaldi on X

Ok this is amazing

Posted by Fabrizio Rinaldi
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No presentation of only two extreme options. No dilemmas at all.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us vs. them dynamics or divisive language. Neutral and vague.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
'Amazing' mildly frames something positively but lacks good vs. evil framing.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
No suspicious correlation with major events like immigration protests or Syrian clashes; X posts show organic use unrelated to news or historical disinformation timing patterns.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No similarity to propaganda techniques or campaigns; searches find no links to documented psyops or disinformation playbooks.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No entities or narratives benefiting any group; searches confirm no political alignment, funding, or promotion disguised as content.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims that 'everyone agrees' or pressure to conform. Lacks social proof tactics.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency or manufactured momentum; searches show no trends, bots, or pushes for sudden belief change.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique casual reaction; X reveals independent uses across diverse topics without coordination or identical talking points.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
Too brief for reasoning; no flawed arguments present.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, authorities, or citations mentioned.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data, statistics, or selective presentation at all.
Framing Techniques 3/5
'Amazing' uses positively biased language to frame an unspecified 'this,' creating an enthusiastic tone without details.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or negative labeling of dissenters.
Context Omission 4/5
The phrase refers to 'this' without specifying what it is, omitting all context about the subject.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
'Amazing' is a common descriptor without claims of being unprecedented or shocking. No hype for novelty.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words or phrases; the content is a single short sentence.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage or anger expressed; the tone is purely positive with no disconnection from facts.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
There are no demands for immediate action or any calls to do anything. The phrase is a standalone reaction.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
The content expresses mild positivity with 'amazing' but contains no fear, outrage, or guilt language. No emotional triggers to manipulate the audience.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Appeal to fear-prejudice Reductio ad hitlerum Thought-terminating Cliches
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else