Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

9
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
73% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Liam Corrigan on X

Let's see the Beff <> peptide 7% body fat arc

Posted by Liam Corrigan
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No two extreme options presented; open-ended suggestion.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us vs. them language or dynamics; neutral and non-divisive.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Frames a transformation 'arc' in shorthand, implying good (lean body) outcome without deeper nuance.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Organic timing with no suspicious correlation to major events like US winter storms or political news from Jan 22-25, 2026; searches confirmed no strategic distraction patterns.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to known propaganda; searches found no parallels to psyops, state disinformation, or astroturfing campaigns.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No identifiable beneficiaries or alignments; generic nod to Beff Jezos and peptides shows no promotion, funding, or political gain per X/web searches.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No suggestion that 'everyone agrees' or join a consensus; individual anticipation only.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency or manufactured momentum; isolated post lacks trends, bots, or pressure for opinion shifts per searches.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique perspective without coordination; no identical talking points or clustering across sources in recent X/web results.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
No arguments or reasoning to contain fallacies; purely suggestive phrase.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, sources, or authorities cited or invoked.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
Spotlights specific 'peptide 7% body fat arc' narrative, potentially selective without full context on Beff's history.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Biased shorthand 'Beff <> peptide 7% body fat arc' equates identity to fitness goal with symbolic progression, slanting toward transformation hype.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics, dissent, or negative labeling.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits who 'Beff' is, what peptides entail, or arc context, leaving crucial details for assumed knowledge.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' claims; references a personal 'arc' without hype or exaggeration.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Short single sentence lacks any repeated emotional words or phrases.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or implied; casual tone disconnected from any facts or controversy.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action or response; it passively suggests watching a potential development.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; the neutral phrase 'Let's see the Beff <> peptide 7% body fat arc' invites casual observation without emotional triggers.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Causal Oversimplification Bandwagon Reductio ad hitlerum
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else