Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

12
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
63% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Stephen King on X

Excellent! Do your homework, boys! https://t.co/ikDm2KFJ1T

Posted by Stephen King
View original →

Perspectives

Both Red and Blue Teams concur on minimal manipulation, with Red identifying mild framing and contextual gaps (score 14/100, 22% confidence) and Blue emphasizing authentic peer promotion with verifiable context (score 8/100, 92% confidence). Blue's evidence of contextual fit outweighs Red's cautious flags, supporting low suspicion.

Key Points

  • Strong agreement on absence of major manipulation patterns like urgency, division, or fallacies.
  • Tone interpreted differently: Red sees mild condescension ('paternalistic'), Blue views as 'playful banter' among peers.
  • Link context resolves Red's concern: Blue verifies as transparent book event promo (e.g., Stephen King/Joe Hill).
  • Overall low scores reflect benign, organic author interaction rather than deception.
  • Blue's higher confidence stems from external verification, tilting balance toward authenticity.

Further Investigation

  • Expand/verify the link (https://t.co/ikDm2KFJ1T) independently to confirm book signing details and authors involved.
  • Review full thread/replies for patterns of manufactured consensus or atypical engagement.
  • Examine posters' (e.g., authors') posting history for consistent casual tone vs. promotional anomalies.
  • Assess audience demographics and reaction authenticity beyond summary.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No presentation of only two extreme options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
Mild 'us vs. them' with 'boys!' referring to fellow authors, but playful rather than divisive.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
No good vs. evil framing; simplistic promo but lacks moral binary.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Post from November 2025 shows no suspicious alignment with recent events like Gaza news or U.S. storms on January 23-25, 2026, or upcoming ones; purely organic author promotion.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda playbooks; benign banter unlike documented disinformation tactics.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Mild benefit to authors Stephen King, Joe Hill, and Linwood Barclay via book event promo, but genuine sharing without disguised promotion; no political gain as unrelated to King's other partisan tweets.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No implication that 'everyone agrees'; lacks social proof or majority claims.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency or manufactured momentum; fan replies are casual book discussions without coordinated push.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique tweet phrasing; no identical talking points or coordination across sources, just standard event listings.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
No arguments or reasoning to contain fallacies.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented at all.
Framing Techniques 3/5
'Excellent!' frames positively enthusiastic, 'boys!' uses informal paternalistic tone toward authors, and 'Do your homework!' implies mild condescension to uninitiated readers.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No labeling of critics; replies include mild dissent unaddressed.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits context for 'homework' reference and link details, assuming audience knows the quoted book signing event.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of unprecedented or shocking events; content lacks any novelty hype.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single instance of enthusiasm with 'Excellent!'; no repeated emotional triggers.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or manufactured; tone is playful sarcasm without factual disconnect.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; phrase 'Do your homework, boys!' is casual and non-urgent.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
Minimal emotional language; 'Excellent!' shows mild enthusiasm, but no fear, outrage, or guilt triggers evident.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Appeal to fear-prejudice Causal Oversimplification Appeal to Authority
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else