Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

18
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
71% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Outdated Often on X

Interesting concept, what about Gemini?

Posted by Outdated Often
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No presentation of only two extreme options; just a open-ended question.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us vs. them dynamics or division; neutral phrasing avoids tribal rhetoric.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Mildly simplistic by implying Gemini equivalence without elaboration, but no good vs. evil framing.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing aligns organically with the Jan 10-11 Grok AI controversy on X, where similar phrases respond directly to news of potential X bans; no suspicious correlation to distract from other major events like global protests.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to documented psyops or campaigns; searches found no matching historical disinformation using this tactic.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Implicitly supports xAI/Grok by questioning competitor Gemini amid explicit image backlash, benefiting Elon Musk's ecosystem ideologically; searches show alignment with pro-free speech users but no paid promotion.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No suggestion that 'everyone agrees' or pressure to join a consensus; isolated neutral query.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
Mild spike in similar posts during Grok controversy trend on X, but organic user responses without extreme pressure or astroturfing evidence.
Phrase Repetition 4/5
Verbatim 'what about Gemini?' appears across dozens of X posts in 48 hours replying to Grok critics, indicating moderate coordination via shared deflection phrase.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
Employs mild 'whataboutism' by redirecting to Gemini without addressing the core issue.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented at all, selective or otherwise.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Frames prior idea as 'Interesting concept' neutrally before questioning Gemini, subtly implying comparison via casual language.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No labeling of critics or suppression; does not engage dissent.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits context explaining the 'concept' or why Gemini is relevant, assuming audience knowledge of Grok controversy.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of unprecedented or shocking events; lacks any hyperbolic novelty assertions.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single short sentence with no repeated emotional triggers.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or manufactured; content remains inquisitive and detached from facts or emotion.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action or pressure; simply poses a mild question without urgency.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; the content is a neutral, casual remark: 'Interesting concept, what about Gemini?'

Identified Techniques

Appeal to Authority Flag-Waving Bandwagon Causal Oversimplification Name Calling, Labeling
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else