Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

40
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
70% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

S.A.Cosby on X

Stop lying. But if ICE is concerned about rapist there is one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Posted by S.A.Cosby
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
Mild binary of either address migrant threats or ignore presidential liability, but not strictly two extreme options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
'Stop lying' pits truth-tellers against liars, implying Trump/ICE supporters as dishonest vs. enlightened critics.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
Frames issue as hypocrisy: ICE targets rapists but ignores 'one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,' reducing complex immigration crime to good-vs-evil deflection.
Timing Coincidence 4/5
Content posted amid DHS/ICE Jan 19-23 announcements of rapist arrests and JD Vance's sex offender clip, strongly correlating to deflect from enforcement successes.<grok:render type="render_inline_citation"><argument name="citation_id">63</argument></grok:render><grok:render type="render_inline_citation"><argument name="citation_id">68</argument></grok:render>
Historical Parallels 2/5
Mirrors common whataboutism in partisan US discourse, but no strong ties to documented psyops like IRA playbooks; superficial tu quoque tactic.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Benefits anti-Trump left opposing deportations, aligning with sanctuary state narratives in Minnesota; no specific funding but ideological win against Trump admin policies.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of widespread agreement or 'everyone knows'; isolated retort without peer pressure cues.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 3/5
Cluster of identical responses surged with ICE Minnesota arrests and Vance clip Jan 22-25, creating manufactured counter-momentum against enforcement hype.
Phrase Repetition 4/5
Exact phrasing 'rapist... at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue' echoed in dozens of X posts Jan 22-25 responding to ICE news, indicating shared talking points.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Classic tu quoque whataboutism: deflects ICE rapist arrests by alleging presidential one, avoiding substantive rebuttal.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, officials, or sources cited; relies solely on unsubstantiated claim.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
Singles out one figure without comparative data on migrant vs. citizen crimes or conviction details.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Biased 'rapist' label equates civil verdict with criminal act; 'concerned about rapist' mocks ICE motives derogatorily.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No labeling of critics as racist or deplorable; just accuses of lying without dismissing opposition.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits context of ICE targeting convicted criminal migrants vs. civil sexual abuse finding; ignores thousands of arrests including non-rapists.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of unprecedented events, shocks, or 'never before seen'; straightforward accusation without hype.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single use of emotional language like 'Stop lying' without repetition of triggers for amplification.
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
Outrage implied via 'Stop lying' but tied loosely to E. Jean Carroll case facts; somewhat disconnected as it equates civil liability with criminal migrant threats.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action, sharing, or mobilization; merely a retort without calls to protest or contact authorities.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
The direct accusation 'Stop lying' triggers outrage and defensiveness, positioning the responder as truthful against a deceptive foe. No intense fear or guilt induction beyond mild confrontation.

Identified Techniques

Exaggeration, Minimisation Doubt Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Bandwagon

What to Watch For

Consider why this is being shared now. What events might it be trying to influence?
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 some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

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