Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

32
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
70% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Stephen King on X

Yeah, he was. https://t.co/9rgxKNMZfW

Posted by Stephen King
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 3/5
No false dichotomies or extreme binary options presented.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
No us vs. them dynamics or divisive rhetoric present.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
No good vs. evil or overly simplistic framing; content too brief.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic with no suspicious correlation to major events like Trump-JPMorgan lawsuit or Jack Smith testimony; searches confirm no strategic distraction or priming.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to known propaganda playbooks or disinformation campaigns; searches found no similar historical patterns.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No clear beneficiaries identified; content mentions no organizations or politicians, and searches reveal no aligned financial or political interests.
Bandwagon Effect 3/5
No claims of widespread agreement or social proof to create bandwagon illusion.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No pressure for quick opinion change or manufactured momentum; searches confirm no trends, bots, or astroturfing.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique and isolated statement with no evidence of coordinated messaging; X searches showed no identical phrasing across sources.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
No arguments or reasoning to exhibit fallacies.
Authority Overload 3/5
No citations of experts or authorities.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
No data or evidence presented to cherry-pick.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Neutral, casual phrasing 'Yeah, he was.' shows no biased word choices.
Suppression of Dissent 3/5
No labeling or dismissal of critics or opposing views.
Context Omission 3/5
Highly vague with no context on 'he' or what 'was'; crucial details omitted for standalone comprehension.
Novelty Overuse 3/5
No unprecedented or shocking claims; just a casual affirmative statement.
Emotional Repetition 3/5
No repeated emotional triggers, as the content is a single short sentence.
Manufactured Outrage 3/5
No outrage language or disconnected emotional claims; tone is neutral.
Urgent Action Demands 3/5
No demands for immediate action or urgency are present.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
The content 'Yeah, he was.' contains no fear, outrage, or guilt language.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Appeal to fear-prejudice Name Calling, Labeling Slogans Reductio ad hitlerum

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