Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

47
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
60% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content

Source preview not available for this content.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary extremes presented; just one claim without forcing choices.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
Subtle 'us vs. them' by labeling one side's protesters 'professional,' implying insincere vs. genuine patriots.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Reduces complex protests to single 'professional' actor, implying good (organic) vs. evil (paid) without nuance.
Timing Coincidence 5/5
Viral exactly as anti-ICE protests surge nationwide after Jan 8-9 shootings/killing reported on PBS/ABC; posts cluster today to imply current protests like Minneapolis are 'paid,' distracting from ICE tactics scrutiny.
Historical Parallels 4/5
'Professional protester' echoes debunked Soros-paid myths from Trump 2016/2020 BLM campaigns; matches pattern of right-wing psyops discrediting grassroots activism via funding smears.
Financial/Political Gain 4/5
Pushed by MAGA accounts like @DefiantLs/@elonmusk claiming ActBlue funding; strongly benefits right-wing efforts to delegitimize Dem-aligned protests amid ICE backlash, aligning with anti-left narratives.
Bandwagon Effect 2/5
Mild implication that spotting one repeat protester proves all are astroturf, but no 'everyone agrees' or mass consensus claim.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 5/5
Sudden Jan 11 explosion (@elonmusk 1M+ views) with copied posts pressures view of ongoing ICE protests as fake/paid; manufactured trend via influencer amplification.
Phrase Repetition 5/5
Dozens of X posts today verbatim repeat 'professional protester ... 100 different protests ... ActBlue'; clear coordination across influencers like GuntherEagleman/CharlieK_news.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Hasty generalization from one person to all protests as 'paid'; assumes attendance proves professionalism without payment evidence.
Authority Overload 2/5
No experts or authorities cited; relies on unnamed claim.
Cherry-Picked Data 4/5
Focuses solely on one repeat protester across '100' (unverified) events, ignoring broader protest diversity.
Framing Techniques 3/5
'Professional protestor' biases as insincere/careerist; 'same ... found at 100' frames activism as suspicious repetition.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No critics mentioned or labeled; silent on counterarguments.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits evidence for '100' protests, protester identity, payment proof; crucial context like video source or verification absent.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' hyperbole; '100 different protests' is a specific but unsubstantiated number without novelty emphasis.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single short phrase with no repeated emotional words or triggers.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or evoked; lacks disconnected emotional claims, just a straightforward assertion.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; content simply states a claim without urging shares, arrests, or responses.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; the short claim 'Same professional protestor found at 100 different protests' is neutral and factual in tone without emotional triggers.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Causal Oversimplification Appeal to fear-prejudice Bandwagon

What to Watch For

Consider why this is being shared now. What events might it be trying to influence?
This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
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