Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

50
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
65% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

martin davidson on X

She is not a protester, she is an employee.šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

Posted by martin davidson
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
Subtly presents as either real protester or employee, ignoring possibilities like volunteer or concerned citizen.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
Frames 'protester' as fake 'employee,' pitting genuine citizens vs. paid agitators in us-vs-them dynamic against anti-ICE crowds.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
Reduces complex protest to binary 'not a protester, she is an employee,' implying good citizens vs. paid bad actors without nuance.
Timing Coincidence 5/5
Posted Jan 11 amid nationwide anti-ICE protests after Jan 7 Renee Good shooting by ICE; Elon's repost amplifies during peak protest coverage, strategically deflecting by framing protesters as paid.
Historical Parallels 4/5
'Not a protester, employee' echoes 'professional/paid protester' claims in past right-wing campaigns against BLM and anti-Trump rallies, akin to unproven Soros astroturfing tactics.
Financial/Political Gain 4/5
Supports Trump/ICE narrative via Elon Musk and right-wing accounts like Defiant L’s; aligns with defending shooting and claiming ActBlue-funded astroturf against administration policies.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims that 'everyone agrees' or crowds endorse; standalone assertion without social proof.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 4/5
Elon's repost sparked rapid viral spread with 19k likes/1M views in hours; influencers push 'paid protester' narrative demanding shift to view protests as fake amid ICE backlash.
Phrase Repetition 5/5
Exact video of 'professional protester at 100 protests' and phrases like ActBlue funding reposted identically by Defiant L’s, GuntherEagleman, EricLDaugh on same day, indicating coordination.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Ad hominem by redefining protester as 'employee' to discredit without evidence; shrug dismisses counterarguments.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, sources, or authorities cited; just anonymous claim.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented at all, let alone selective.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Biased phrasing 'not a protester, she is an employee' delegitimizes via implication of paid fakery; shrug adds sarcastic dismissal.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or labeling dissenters.
Context Omission 4/5
No details on who 'she' is, which employee/protest, evidence of employment, or context; bare assertion omits verification.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of unprecedented or shocking events; simple assertion without hype like 'first time' or 'never seen before.'
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single short statement with no repeated emotional triggers or phrases.
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
Shrug emoji suggests casual skepticism rather than heated outrage; no exaggeration disconnected from any facts provided.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; merely states 'She is not a protester, she is an employee' without calls to share, protest, or react.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
Mild emotional pull through dismissive shrug emoji implying deceit, but lacks strong fear, outrage, or guilt language like threats or accusations.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Appeal to fear-prejudice Reductio ad hitlerum Obfuscation, Intentional Vagueness, Confusion

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.
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
Analyze Something Else