Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

53
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
67% confidence
High manipulation indicators. Consider verifying claims.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Erik Dale 🇳🇴 on X

Every single MP quitting X to "protect women" from bikini pics voted against grooming gang inquiries. Not exaggerating. What does that tell you?

Posted by Erik Dale 🇳🇴
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 3/5
Presents MPs' priorities as exclusively misplaced—bikini pics over grooming—ignoring multifaceted child protection efforts.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 4/5
Frames MPs as hypocritical elite ('voted against grooming gang inquiries') versus implied righteous audience discerning truth.
Simplistic Narratives 4/5
Reduces complex votes and AI image concerns to binary hypocrisy: fake care for 'bikini pics' but ignore real 'grooming gang inquiries.'
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Posts surged Jan 13-14, 2026, directly reacting to BBC reports of MPs quitting X over non-consensual sexualised bikini images; no correlation to distracting major events, organic to news cycle.
Historical Parallels 2/5
Echoes partisan grooming gang politicization seen in Musk-Starmer disputes, labeled by some as right-wing narrative amplification, but lacks hallmarks of known psyops.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Advances anti-Labour agenda for Tories/Reform UK by framing MPs as hypocrites on women/children protection; no financial beneficiaries or paid ops detected.
Bandwagon Effect 2/5
No assertions of widespread agreement; focuses on uniform MP behavior ('Every single MP') without claiming public consensus.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 4/5
Abrupt viral replication of message Jan 13-14 pressures snap judgment on MPs via manufactured repetition and high engagement.
Phrase Repetition 5/5
Verbatim repetition of core claim across multiple X accounts within hours signals coordinated push beyond normal news sharing.
Logical Fallacies 4/5
Hasty generalization ('Every single MP'), false equivalence (bikini pics vs grooming), and ad hominem hypocrisy attack.
Authority Overload 1/5
No cited experts, authorities, or sources; relies solely on unsubstantiated claim 'Every single MP.'
Cherry-Picked Data 4/5
Selects quitting MPs (mostly Labour) who voted against 2025 amendment, ignoring broader parliamentary context and non-quitting MPs.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Loaded sarcasm in '"protect women"' and diminutive 'bikini pics' versus ominous 'grooming gang inquiries' biases toward hypocrisy narrative.
Suppression of Dissent 2/5
No labeling of critics; rhetorical question implies dissenters miss obvious hypocrisy without direct attack.
Context Omission 5/5
Omits grooming vote details (Tory amendment to opposed bill, not standalone inquiry) and bikini context (non-consensual AI sexual abuse); no list of specific MPs.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
Mild emphasis on 'Every single MP' and 'Not exaggerating' suggests comprehensiveness but lacks unprecedented or shocking claims.
Emotional Repetition 2/5
No repeated emotional triggers; single instance of outrage via contrast between bikini pics and grooming gangs.
Manufactured Outrage 4/5
Outrage appears manufactured by juxtaposing MPs' concern for 'bikini pics' with ignored 'grooming gang inquiries,' disconnecting recent AI image complaints from factual vote context.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action or pressure; merely poses rhetorical question 'What does that tell you?' inviting reflection without urgency.
Emotional Triggers 4/5
Sarcastic quotation of 'protect women' paired with trivial 'bikini pics' against grave 'grooming gang inquiries' evokes outrage and disbelief at hypocrisy.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Doubt Causal Oversimplification Whataboutism, Straw Men, Red Herring

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows moderate manipulation indicators. Cross-reference with independent sources.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else