Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

25
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
65% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Jessica on X

I support him 💯 He’s an innocent little baby and deserves a safe and loving home.

Posted by Jessica
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
No explicit binary choices; vaguely pits support for Musk against unspecified risk to child.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
Mild us-vs-them by supporting 'him' (Musk) implicitly against implied threat to the baby, fostering protective in-group sentiment.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
Presents child as purely 'innocent little baby' deserving uncomplicated 'safe and loving home,' oversimplifying complex custody issues.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
No suspicious correlation with major events like Iran protests (503 deaths [web:29]) or Trump foreign policy statements [web:24]; organic timing as direct reply to Musk's custody filing announcement same day [post:20].
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to known patterns like Nazi child imagery propaganda [web:47] or WWI posters [web:51]; personal opinion without psyop techniques.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Aligns with Elon Musk's anti-gender transition stance in custody dispute with Ashley St. Clair [post:20], benefiting his political/ideological position ideologically but no clear financial gain or paid operation evident.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No references to widespread agreement, crowds, or 'everyone knows'; purely personal endorsement with 💯.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No pressure for opinion change, trending pushes, or astroturfing; low-moderate engagement without signs of manufactured discourse shift [post:20].
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Unique phrasing in this reply [post:20]; supportive replies exist but varied wording, with similar phrases elsewhere only in unrelated pet rescues [post:9]; no coordinated verbatim spread.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
Assumes baby's safety hinges on this custody outcome without supporting reasoning (possible appeal to emotion over logic).
Authority Overload 1/5
No citations of experts, studies, or authorities; personal opinion only.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data, statistics, or evidence presented at all.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Highly positive framing with '💯' support, 'innocent little baby,' and idealized 'safe and loving home' to emotionally bias toward endorsement.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention or labeling of opposing views or critics.
Context Omission 4/5
Refers to 'him' without specifying Musk's son or detailing Ashley St. Clair's remarks/context [post:20], omitting key facts.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of anything being unprecedented, shocking, or first-of-its-kind; straightforward supportive opinion.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single use of emotional language without repetition of triggers like fear or outrage.
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
Mild implication of concern over the baby's welfare, but tied to custody context rather than baseless exaggeration.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands or calls for immediate action; simply states personal support without pressuring others to act.
Emotional Triggers 4/5
Uses emotive language like 'innocent little baby' and 'safe and loving home' to evoke sympathy and protective instincts toward the child.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Reductio ad hitlerum Exaggeration, Minimisation Straw Man

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