Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

12
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
83% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Robert Youssef on X

I hope you've found this thread helpful. Follow me @rryssf_ for more. Like/Repost the quote below if you can: https://t.co/CiMyj7XSYl

Posted by Robert Youssef
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No presentation of only two extreme options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us vs. them dynamics; neutral call to follow and engage.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good vs. evil framing; absent in benign closing.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic with no correlation to major events like Minnesota ICE protests or wildfires; searches show consistent AI posting unrelated to news cycles.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda techniques; standard self-promotion by AI influencer, unlike known psyops or disinformation playbooks.
Financial/Political Gain 4/5
@rryssf_ promotes his @godofprompt business via threads ending in product links like the AI bundle, directly benefiting his company financially.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims that 'everyone agrees' or social proof pressure; simple follow and repost suggestion.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No pressure for opinion change or manufactured trends; polite engagement request amid steady AI content posting.
Phrase Repetition 3/5
Identical closing phrase used across multiple @rryssf_ threads and similar templates by other AI accounts, indicating common engagement strategy.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
No arguments or reasoning to contain fallacies.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented at all.
Framing Techniques 2/5
Mildly promotional with 'Follow me @rryssf_ for more' but neutral language overall.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or negative labeling.
Context Omission 2/5
Minimal content omits thread context but no crucial facts expected in a simple closer.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of unprecedented or shocking events; generic closing without hype.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words or phrases; content is straightforward and neutral.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or implied; lacks any facts or controversy to disconnect from.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; mild request to 'Like/Repost the quote below if you can' is optional and non-urgent.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; the content politely states 'I hope you've found this thread helpful' without emotional triggers.

Identified Techniques

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