Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

7
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
74% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Tom Osman šŸ¦ā€ā¬› on X

this is good too https://t.co/aFxn09gGet

Posted by Tom Osman šŸ¦ā€ā¬›
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive perspectives agree that the post consists of a brief, neutral endorsement (ā€œthis is good tooā€) plus a bare URL, and they find no overt manipulation tactics such as emotional language, authority appeals, urgency, or coordinated posting. The critical view flags the positive framing as a minimal manipulation, while the supportive view treats it as harmless. Overall, the evidence points to very low manipulation risk.

Key Points

  • Both analyses note the post is a simple endorsement with a bare link and lacks contextual justification.
  • Neither perspective finds emotional triggers, authority citations, urgency cues, or coordinated activity.
  • The critical perspective sees the phrase ā€œthis is good tooā€ as a subtle framing bias, whereas the supportive perspective judges it neutral.
  • Both cite low uniform‑messaging (1/5) and timing scores (1/5), reinforcing the view of minimal strategic intent.
  • Score suggestions differ modestly (12 vs 5), but the convergence on low manipulation leads to a middle‑ground recommendation.

Further Investigation

  • Examine the content of the linked URL to see if it contains hidden agendas or persuasive framing.
  • Review the posting history of the account for patterns of similar endorsements or undisclosed affiliations.
  • Check for any external amplification (retweets, replies) that might suggest coordinated amplification.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choice is presented; the tweet does not force the reader into an either‑or scenario.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The language does not set up an "us vs. them" narrative; it simply offers a positive comment.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
The statement is too brief to construct a good‑vs‑evil storyline; it merely labels something as good.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Search results showed no correlation with breaking news, elections, or scheduled announcements in the past 72 hours, suggesting the posting time is ordinary rather than strategically chosen.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The brief, neutral endorsement does not resemble known state‑sponsored propaganda or corporate astroturfing templates documented in scholarly research.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
Neither the tweet nor the linked page identifies a beneficiary; no political or commercial entity appears to profit from the post.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The tweet does not claim that many people already agree or that the audience should join a majority view.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
There is no evidence of a sudden surge in discussion, hashtags, or bot activity that would pressure users to change opinion quickly.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
No other accounts were found echoing the exact phrasing or sharing the same link within a close time frame, indicating the post is not part of a coordinated campaign.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
The brief endorsement lacks argumentative structure, so no clear logical fallacy (e.g., appeal to authority, slippery slope) can be identified.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, authorities, or credentials are cited to bolster the claim.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
With no data presented at all, there is nothing to selectively highlight or omit.
Framing Techniques 3/5
The phrasing "this is good too" frames the linked content positively, but the framing is minimal and does not employ loaded adjectives or loaded comparisons.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
The post does not label critics or opposing views in a negative way; there is no attempt to silence dissent.
Context Omission 4/5
Because the tweet provides only a link with no context, essential background (what the linked material actually is, why it matters) is omitted, leaving the audience without critical information.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
The message makes no claim of unprecedented or shocking information; it merely labels something as "good".
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Only a single emotional cue (ā€œgoodā€) is used once; there is no repeated emotional trigger throughout the text.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
The content does not express outrage, nor does it link any negative sentiment to facts or events.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demand for immediate action appears; the post simply shares content without urging the audience to do anything right away.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
The tweet contains only a neutral statement "this is good too" and a link; there is no language that evokes fear, outrage, or guilt.

Identified Techniques

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