Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

26
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
62% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Erinn on X

Yea. At the expense of their child. Sad

Posted by Erinn
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
No presented choices or extremes; vague accusation without binary framing.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
'Their child' pits irresponsible parents against implied righteous observers, fostering us-vs-them judgment.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
Reduces complex parenting to good child vs. selfish parents via 'At the expense of their child'.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic as a casual X reply on Jan 12, 2026, with no suspicious ties to major events like immigration protests or airstrikes, nor historical disinformation patterns.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No matches to propaganda like QAnon child sacrifice or Satanic panic; everyday complaint unrelated to known psyops techniques.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No named actors, outlets, or beneficiaries; personal conservative-leaning post shows no evidence of political operations or funding alignment.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No suggestions of widespread agreement or 'everyone knows' parents act this way; standalone judgment.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency, trends, or coordinated push; single post lacks pressure for opinion change or manufactured momentum.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique casual phrasing with no verbatim repeats or clustering across outlets/social media; isolated amid sporadic unrelated uses.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Assumes parental wrongdoing without proof, relying on emotional appeal over evidence.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, sources, or authorities cited to back the claim.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
No data or examples provided; pure assertion without selection.
Framing Techniques 4/5
'Expense' frames child's well-being as a cost parents willingly pay, biasing toward condemnation.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No labeling or dismissal of critics; no dissent even addressed.
Context Omission 5/5
Omits what parents did, context of 'their child', evidence of harm, or alternatives; entirely fact-free.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
No claims of 'unprecedented' or shocking events; generic phrasing like 'At the expense of their child' lacks hyperbolic novelty.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Emotions expressed once via 'Sad'; no repeated triggers or escalating emotional words.
Manufactured Outrage 4/5
Outrage at parents is asserted via 'At the expense of their child' without factual basis, implying selfishness disconnected from details.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No calls for action, sharing, or response; merely a passive observation ending in 'Sad'.
Emotional Triggers 4/5
The closing word 'Sad' evokes pity and guilt toward the child while condemning parents, using emotional language to amplify sympathy without evidence.

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
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