Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

18
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
71% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Jess X on X

Exactly. This is absolute insanity

Posted by Jess X
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
No binary choices presented; just outrage at one event without extreme options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
Mild us-vs-them via implying a 'deeply broken person' flipping sides, aligning with conservative critique of gender ideology shift.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
'Absolute insanity' frames view flip as wholly negative without nuance, presenting clear good-vs-bad on ideology.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
No suspicious correlation; content is isolated X reply on personal ideological shift, unrelated to major events like ICE shooting or Ukraine war Jan 9-12 2026, appearing organic.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda techniques; casual phrase not matching documented disinformation patterns or campaigns.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No clear beneficiaries; organic conservative reply criticizing view change, no links to funded outlets, politicians, or companies gaining from narrative.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of widespread agreement or 'everyone knows'; just personal agreement via 'Exactly' without social proof.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency or pressure for opinion change; isolated statement lacks manufactured trends, bots, or rapid amplification per X searches.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique phrasing in single recent X post; no identical messaging across sources or time clustering evident from searches.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Assumes flip proves 'deeply broken' person via ad hominem implication, lacking reasoning on why change is invalid.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, sources, or authorities cited; purely opinion-based.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented at all; hyperbolic claim without selective evidence.
Framing Techniques 4/5
'Absolute insanity' uses extreme, biased hyperbole to frame event negatively, loaded with disapproval.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or labeling dissenters; focuses on one person's change.
Context Omission 4/5
Crucial context omitted—what 'this' refers to, details of the flip, or book content—leaving statement vague and incomplete.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
'Absolute insanity' suggests extremity but lacks claims of unprecedented events or shocking novelty; no hyperbolic uniqueness emphasized.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words or phrases; single use of 'insanity' without reinforcement.
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
Outrage tied to 'absolute insanity' references a specific flip in views, somewhat connected to facts, but amplified hyperbolically without full context.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action or pressure; content is merely agreement with 'Exactly' and a declarative outrage statement.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
The statement 'This is absolute insanity' uses hyperbolic outrage language to evoke strong disbelief and emotional reaction. It aims to amplify frustration without deeper fear or guilt triggers.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Doubt Reductio ad hitlerum Exaggeration, Minimisation
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else