Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

8
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
69% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Sumanth on X

If you found it useful, reshare it with your network. Follow me → @Sumanth_077 for more such content and tutorials on ML, LLMs and AI Agents! https://t.co/zRwWsIfIVp

Posted by Sumanth
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices presented; open-ended suggestion to reshare if useful.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No 'us vs. them' dynamics; neutral invitation to follow for tutorials without targeting groups.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good vs. evil framing; straightforward request without oversimplified stories.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic as @Sumanth_077 posts similar AI content daily; no correlation with major January 19-22 events like MLK Day or global conflicts that this might distract from.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda like state-sponsored deepfakes or bot campaigns; matches genuine AI educator patterns, not disinformation playbooks.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
@Sumanth_077 benefits personally from follower growth as an independent creator sharing open-source AI tools; no political or corporate funding ties evident from profile or post history.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims that 'everyone agrees' or widespread adoption implied; focuses on individual utility without social proof pressure.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
Standard promo lacks pressure for quick opinion change; no astroturfing or trends around this post in recent X activity.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
User consistently uses this exact CTA in threads, but no evidence of coordination across unrelated sources; common in AI Twitter for self-promotion.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
Mild assumption users 'found it useful' without evidence, but no major flaws like ad hominem or strawman.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited; self-referential promotion only.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented at all, let alone selective; purely promotional.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Uses positive, benefit-oriented language like 'more such content and tutorials' to encourage follows; slight bias toward engagement without overt manipulation.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or negative labeling; absent in this benign CTA.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits details like specific post context or link destination, potentially leaving users unclear on full value; however, assumes prior content usefulness.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' elements; simply promotes 'tutorials on ML, LLMs and AI Agents' as ongoing content.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words or phrases; single, straightforward call-to-action without redundancy.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or provoked; content is positive and promotional, disconnected from any controversy.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; mild suggestion to 'reshare' and 'Follow me' lacks pressure or deadlines.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; the content neutrally asks 'If you found it useful, reshare it with your network' without emotional triggers.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Appeal to fear-prejudice Bandwagon Reductio ad hitlerum
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else