Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

23
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
70% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Dennis DUS Slotteborn on X

Den här mannen har fattat sanningen. pic.twitter.com/NS2LbtQtqT

Posted by Dennis DUS Slotteborn
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No presentation of only two extreme options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
Subtle us-vs-them via implied 'truth' outsiders miss, but not explicit.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Binary truth endorsement reduces complex ideas to one man's insight, but lacks good-vs-evil details.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Post on Jan 9 appears organic amid routine Swedish news like weather alerts and economic reports; no correlation with major events or historical disinfo timing patterns.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to documented propaganda techniques or campaigns; simple viral video share without matching known psyops.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Vague alignment with anti-socialist views benefits conservative discourse, but no clear financial or specific political beneficiaries identified.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims that 'everyone agrees'; endorsement presented without social proof of mass consensus.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
Viral spread among right-leaning users but mild momentum without pressure for opinion change or astroturfing evidence.
Phrase Repetition 4/5
Exact phrase 'Den här mannen har fattat sanningen' and video reposted identically across many X accounts shortly after original, indicating strong coordination in amplification.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
Appeal to unspecified truth commits hasty generalization, but minimal reasoning.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited; anonymous 'man' without credentials.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
No data presented at all.
Framing Techniques 3/5
'Fattat sanningen' frames the man positively as insightful, using absolute 'truth' language to bias endorsement.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention or labeling of critics.
Context Omission 4/5
Crucially omits who the man is, what 'sanningen' (truth) he states, and video context, leaving audience uninformed.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of unprecedented or shocking events; just vague endorsement of a man's unspecified 'sanningen' (truth).
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional triggers; single short phrase without redundancy.
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
No outrage language or facts to disconnect from; lacks any substantive claim to manufacture anger.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; content is a simple endorsement without calls to share, protest, or act.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
Mild appeal to validation via 'Den här mannen har fattat sanningen' (This man has grasped the truth), implying agreement without evoking strong fear, outrage, or guilt.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Appeal to fear-prejudice Name Calling, Labeling Bandwagon Reductio ad hitlerum

What to Watch For

This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else