Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

20
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
73% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Conny Brunnkvist on X

Kort lista över hur man identifierar en AI-genererad video: 1. Personen talar på just det där viset Klart.

Posted by Conny Brunnkvist
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No two extreme options posed; just one identifier without alternatives.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
Neutral advice without us-vs-them; applies generally to 'Personen' without group targeting.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
Presents a binary good-vs-evil undertone implicitly by simplifying detection to one obvious trait, but lacks full narrative.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic as a reply to a specific video on Jan 10, 2026; web and X searches show no correlation to major events like Grok deepfake scandals or Swedish politics, unlike historical election distractions.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda playbooks; unlike deepfake disinformation in elections, this promotes spotting AI via speech, countering manipulation patterns found in searches.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No clear beneficiaries among organizations or politicians; individual post by tech enthusiast with no ties to funded campaigns promoting AI detection, per X and web searches.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of widespread agreement or 'everyone knows'; isolated tip without social proof.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No pressure for quick opinion change or manufactured trends; low-engagement post amid scattered AI discussions, no bot pushes or urgency per X searches.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique phrasing with no identical talking points across outlets; searches reveal diverse AI detection advice, not coordinated repetition of this list.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Implies hasty generalization that all AI videos are identifiable by speech alone via the short, unproven list.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited; relies on anecdotal observation alone.
Cherry-Picked Data 4/5
Selects only one speech trait while ignoring other common indicators like blinking or lighting, presenting incomplete evidence.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Biased assertive language like 'Klart' frames the tip as indisputable truth, using casual Swedish phrasing to imply universality.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No labeling of critics; silent on counterarguments.
Context Omission 4/5
Crucial details omitted like full list, specific speech examples, or verification methods; vague 'just det där viset' leaves key facts out.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
The tip 'Personen talar på just det där viset' is a common observation about AI speech patterns, not framed as unprecedented or shocking.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words or triggers; the short list has only one neutral point without emphasis.
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
Lacks outrage disconnected from facts; the casual 'Klart' implies obviousness without amplifying anger.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action or pressure; it simply lists one vague identifier ending with 'Klart,' allowing unhurried consideration.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
The content uses neutral, observational language like 'Personen talar på just det där viset' without fear, outrage, or guilt triggers, presenting a casual tip matter-of-factly.

Identified Techniques

Name Calling, Labeling Loaded Language Reductio ad hitlerum Whataboutism, Straw Men, Red Herring Doubt

What to Watch For

Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else