Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

32
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
70% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Adair Lee on X

how to install? don't display in mcp list

Posted by Adair Lee
View original →

Perspectives

Both Red and Blue Teams strongly agree the content is a neutral, genuine technical query with no detectable manipulation, emotional appeals, or deceptive patterns. Blue Team expresses high confidence (95%) in authenticity, while Red Team offers low confidence (5%) but identical low score suggestion, indicating minimal suspicion overall. This consensus outweighs the original 32.5 score, warranting a downward adjustment due to lack of evidence for manipulation from either perspective.

Key Points

  • Unanimous agreement: No emotional manipulation, logical fallacies, tribalism, or biased framing detected by both teams.
  • Content classified as organic technical troubleshooting specific to AI tools (e.g., Claude MCP plugins).
  • Direct, unadorned phrasing supports legitimacy without persuasive or coordinated messaging elements.
  • Low manipulation score justified by absence of red flags like urgency, omission, or beneficiary incentives.

Further Investigation

  • Full conversation context or thread history to confirm if query responds to a legitimate promo post.
  • User account history for patterns of similar technical queries vs. suspicious activity.
  • Timing relative to MCP plugin releases or known issues for organic vs. coordinated behavior.
  • Verification of 'MCP list' as standard terminology in Anthropic/Claude ecosystems.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 3/5
No presentation of only two extreme options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
No us vs. them dynamics; neutral technical phrasing without group conflict.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
No good vs. evil framing; just a factual installation issue.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic as a reply to a Jan 10, 2026 plugin promo post; no correlation with major events like Iran unrest or US economic reports from Jan 9-12 searches.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No propaganda patterns; MCP is a standard AI protocol per Anthropic docs and GitHub, unrelated to known disinformation playbooks.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No clear beneficiaries; user query about Claude MCP plugin install, with searches confirming neutral AI dev context without political or paid promotion ties.
Bandwagon Effect 3/5
No suggestions that 'everyone agrees' or social proof; isolated question without references to others.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No pressure for opinion change or manufactured momentum; lone tech query amid routine MCP discussions.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique single X post; no coordinated phrasing across sources per searches.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
No arguments or reasoning to contain fallacies.
Authority Overload 3/5
No experts or authorities cited.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
No data presented at all.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Neutral, direct language without biased word choices.
Suppression of Dissent 3/5
No mention of critics or negative labeling.
Context Omission 3/5
Content is a question seeking information on installation, not omitting facts manipulatively.
Novelty Overuse 3/5
No claims of unprecedented or shocking events; straightforward query about installation visibility.
Emotional Repetition 3/5
No repeated emotional triggers; single short sentence with no repetition.
Manufactured Outrage 3/5
No outrage expressed or implied; content lacks any emotional escalation disconnected from facts.
Urgent Action Demands 3/5
No demands for immediate action; merely asks 'how to install?' without pressure.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; the content is a neutral technical question: 'how to install? don't display in mcp list'.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Appeal to fear-prejudice Slogans Straw Man

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
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
Analyze Something Else