Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

23
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
78% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

🇺🇸Arty Guy🇺🇸 on X

To get back at Elon

Posted by 🇺🇸Arty Guy🇺🇸
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary options presented.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
'To get back at Elon' pits anti-Elon grudge against his supporters; mild us-vs-them in personal context.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Reduces complex feud to revenge motive; somewhat good-vs-evil framing of spite.
Timing Coincidence 2/5
Posts using 'To get back at Elon' clustered Jan 11-12 amid Ashley St. Clair's trans reply and her Grok criticism fallout; minor link to Grok scandal but appears organic to X drama, not distracting from broader events like AI blocks.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No propaganda playbook matches; searches found only organic X backlash to Ashley's views, not psyops or astroturfing.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
Phrase accuses personal revenge against Elon Musk in Ashley feud; no beneficiaries like politicians or funders identified in searches, just conservative defense of Musk.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of widespread agreement; isolated motive statement.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 3/5
Accusation fuels sudden X trend speculating Ashley will harm child to spite Elon; searches show explosive Jan 11-12 engagement on her post.
Phrase Repetition 4/5
Verbatim 'To get back at Elon' echoes across 20+ X replies/posts since Jan 11 (e.g., Matt Walsh thread); strong coordination in phrasing amid viral cluster.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
Assumes unproven motive without evidence; mild ad hominem implication.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts cited.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented.
Framing Techniques 3/5
'To get back at Elon' uses loaded revenge language, biasing toward pettiness over nuanced dispute.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No critics labeled.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits all context like Ashley-Elon child link, her trans reply, Grok dispute; crucial backstory absent in snippet.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No unprecedented or shocking claims; simple accusatory phrase without hype.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words; single short statement.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage amplified beyond facts; 'To get back at Elon' implies pettiness but not disconnected from context of personal dispute.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; the snippet 'To get back at Elon' states a motive without urging response.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present in the brief phrase 'To get back at Elon'; lacks emotional triggers.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Reductio ad hitlerum Appeal to fear-prejudice Appeal to Authority

What to Watch For

This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else