[System]
The task is to classify FUD given wartime social media messages. Given a message, provide the evidence phrases, classification decision and a decimal confidence score from 0 to 1.

When analyzing wartime social media messages that contain Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), several recurring patterns can indicate true positives:

1. **Language of Despair or Hopelessness**: Messages that express sentiments suggesting inevitable loss, such as statements predicting that Ukraine "may only remain a 'piece'" or that the situation is "dire" or "hopeless." This language can convey a sense of impending doom.

2. **Doubts About Leadership**: References to mistrust or uncertainties regarding leaders, especially concerning military decisions or strategy (e.g., questions about the military's operational readiness, accusations against leaders for incompetence, or calls for accountability).

3. **Corruption and Accountability Issues**: Messages that highlight corruption within military or government structures, implying that mismanagement leads to poor outcomes for combat effectiveness or the well-being of soldiers, fostering an environment of suspicion and disillusionment.

4. **Concern About Civilian Safety**: Alarming reports of civilian casualties or potential threats to civilians from both military actions and governmental decisions can drive feelings of fear and uncertainty in the population.

5. **Criticism of Military Strategy or Mobilization**: Commentaries that question the efficacy of military mobilization efforts or criticize the leadership's handling of soldiers’ welfare and safety can suggest significant unease about the current operational environment.

6. **Negative Comparisons with Historical Events**: Allusions to past military failures or comparisons to historical conflicts that ended poorly often serve to evoke a sense of fear about the current situation, especially if similar patterns seem to emerge.

7. **Rumors and Speculation**: Messages that proliferate unverified information or conspiracy theories around military readiness, potential losses, or international relations can create an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.

8. **Appeals to Authority**: Citing supposed expert opinions or high-profile criticisms of the current military or government strategies implies that the situation is dire and that those in charge may not be capable of steering the country towards safety.

There is a variety of patterns that lead to false positives in a fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) language manipulation classification. Below are some identified patterns and justifications for why they might not warrant a classification of FUD:

1. **Predictive Statements about Future Events**:
   - Examples: "невдовзі настане день звільнення Криму"; "день розпаду росії"; "на межі третьої світової війни".
   - **Justification**: While these statements indicate anticipation of significant geopolitical events that can induce fear, they often reflect hope or optimism rather than an explicit intent to manipulate fear. They are forward-looking perspectives rather than typical FUD statements designed to undermine trust.

2. **Descriptive Phrases on Violence or Atrocity**:
   - Examples: "знищують українських нацистів"; "жертви серед цивільного населення"; "терористичний акт".
   - **Justification**: These phrases aim to describe ongoing adverse situations or historical contexts rather than creating fear directly. They document reality in a conflict zone, which can lead to emotional reactions but does not inherently indicate manipulative intent.

3. **Urgent Calls for Action**:
   - Examples: "долати будь-які виклики сьогодення"; "потрібно перемогти терор".
   - **Justification**: Such statements can evoke urgency but are often framed in a motivational context, urging active participation against threats, rather than generating fear for the sake of manipulation.

4. **Statements about Accountability and Legal Action**:
   - Examples: "зловживаючи службовими обов'язками", "винні повинні понести відповідальність".
   - **Justification**: These phrases emphasize justice or accountability in a wartime context and do not serve to instill fear. Instead, they reflect societal calls for legal and ethical standards during conflict.

5. **Statements of Resilience and National Spirit**:
   - Examples: "перемога буде за нами"; "братерство українського народу".
   - **Justification**: Celebratory and supportive language focused on resilience continuously reinforces morale. These sentiments counteract fear-based rhetoric.

6. **References to Political Dynamics**:
   - Examples: "внутрішній російський конфлікт"; "заяви міжнародних партнерів".
   - **Justification**: While discussing political instability may create anxiety due to potential repercussions, these statements often serve to provide context and are fundamental to analysis rather than FUD manipulation.

7. **Cautions and Warnings**:
   - Examples: "він може бути небезпечним"; "може загрожувати безпеці".
   - **Justification**: These are general cautionary advisories that are not about spreading panic but are instead relevant for public safety and communication.

8. **Demands for Truth and Transparency**:
   - Examples: "досліджуйте факти"; "повідомте правду".
   - **Justification**: Rather than driving fear, these statements advocate for clarity and fact-finding as necessary measures in response to FUD narratives.

By understanding these patterns, it's observable that many phrases do not align with the core elements of FUD manipulation, which include deliberate obfuscation of truth, panic-inducing language, and motives meant to create distrust. Instead, they often represent a mix of emotional responses, calls for justice, resilience, and inquiry into the truth within the context of a complex and emotional wartime narrative.

Analyzing the phrases that have triggered false positives in the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) language manipulation classifier reveals several identifiable patterns. While the classifier is designed to detect FUD language, many of the tested phrases do not fit into this category, highlighting potential areas of misunderstanding or overzealous classification.

### **Patterns Leading to False Positives:**

1. **Direct Reporting of Events:**
   - Phrases reporting facts about wartime incidents, such as "смерть ходить за ними," "протитанкові міни," or "обстріли мирного населення," may be mistaken for fearmongering, but they are simply factual recounts of events. The classifier potentially over-interprets these statements as attempts to incite fear.

2. **Expressions of Solidarity or Support:**
   - Messages expressing empathy or support towards victims or those affected, such as "Сумно на це дивитись" or "Ми переживаємо за наших людей," can be misclassified as manipulative language. Emotional expressions may be detected as signs of fear due to their inherent emotional content.

3. **Critique of Governments and Institutions:**
   - Statements criticizing the actions or policies of governments, whether about military strategies or humanitarian conditions, like "уряди у Варшаві, Парижі, Празі мають сприяти депортації," might trigger warnings. However, this critique is often part of a legitimate discourse on governance and not inherently a FUD tactic.

4. **Use of Hyperbolic Language in Contextual Commentary:**
   - Phrases using hyperbole to emphasize the gravity of situations (e.g., "росіяни, колективний путін дають нам відповіді щодо причин цієї війни") may trigger classifiers but reflect common rhetorical strategies rather than an intention to incite fear.

5. **Expressions of Concern Not Aligned With Manipulation:**
   - Warnings about potential future events or harm, such as "Загроза ракетних ударів зберігається високою по всій території України," are anticipated reactions to risky contexts. While they reflect concern, they also serve as cautions rather than manipulative or fear-inducing statements.

6. **Causal Linking and Societal Contexts:**
   - References to societal issues like terrorism, historical contexts, or systemic behaviors (e.g., "крові, зламаних доль, знищеного міжнародного права") may be treated as FUD, yet they merely present a narrative of ongoing struggles and should be assessed with a contextual lens.

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

- **Clarification of Content versus Intent:**
  The intent behind messages reporting factual incidents may vary significantly from those intended to manipulate emotions. The classifier must take into account the basis of claimed facts, as genuine reporting often does not aim to instill fear or doubt.

- **Empathy as a Response Mechanism:**
  Emotional responses during crises—while potentially fear-inducing—can also be critical for community solidarity and healing. The classifier should recognize expressions of empathy rather than categorizing them as FUD.

- **Criticism as Civic Engagement:**
  Critiques of political actions or systemic failures should be celebrated as valuable discourse instead of leading to automatic classification as fear-based language. Open discussions on governance are vital for democratic engagement and do not equate to spreading fear.

In conclusion, the patterns listed above suggest that phrases, which may initially appear FUD-like, should be closely analyzed within their specific context and intent. The classifier's criteria should allow for nuanced interpretations that distinguish between genuine communication about experiences during wartime and manipulative attempts to instill fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Strengthening contextual evaluation might enhance the classifier's accuracy in future assessments.

[User]
Лавров підбирає бункерному нових друзів… на дні африканського континенту
Стримайте здивування, якщо раптом побачите російського фюрера в набедренній повʼязці та зі списом: Путін активно вдає перед африканськими лідерами свого, бо… вони єдині, чию «дружбу» він ще може купити.
🫵🏼
 У липні Московія організовує саміт «Росія - Африка», куди прибудуть лідери найбідніших країн цього континенту. Черга потусуватися з фігурантом Гааги не стоїть, тому «похмура коняка» Лавров уже втретє за цей рік галопом обскакує південних «партнерів», розвозячи щедрі гостинці. Найголовніший з них - це списування мільярдних кредитів, які свого часу Москва обміняла на лояльність за вигідним для африканців курсом. Щоб процесу надати пристойного вигляду, вигадуються «грандіозні прориви»  у "двосторонніх взаєминах".
🇧🇮
 З Бурунді Лавров обговорив угоду щодо мирного використання атома. Дуже своєчасно, зважаючи, що це -  одна з найбідніших країн світу, ВВП - близько $ 3 млрд. Тоді як  будівництво АЕС сьогодні коштує далеко за $10.
🇲🇿
 Мозамбіку «коняка» пообіцяла зброю для боротьби з терористами. Ну і Прігожина, судячи з усього, в комплекті.
🇺🇬
 Ще одна "дипломатична перемога" з Угандою: російський міністр підписав заяву про нерозміщення зброї в космосі. Підозрюю, що після цього Кампала (столиця цієї держави) екстрено мусила згорнути космічно-бумерангову програму.
🇰🇪
 Кенії він підкинув 34 тис. тонн гуманітарки у вигляді добрив. Ці добрива потрапили під європейські санкції, і РФ було вигідніше збагрити їх, ніж платити за фрахт судна, але не кажіть цього кенійцям.
🇪🇷
 Найбільше пощастило президентові Еритреї Афеворку, якого бункерний прийняв у кремлі, при чому - не за довгим столом, а як рідного. Еритреєць прибув «поглибити розуміння», тобто дуже гроші потрібні. Афеворкі може багато чому навчити Путіна: він при владі з 1993 року, вліз у силу силенну військових конфліктів, постійно перебуває під санкціями й при цьому ще в силах «поглиблювати розуміння». Не знаю, як глибоко це порозміння поглиблене, відомо тільки, що Еритрея на рівні з Білорусією, Північною Кореєю та Сирією  не підтримують резолюцію ООН про засудження орків.
🫵🏼
 Політично та ментально бідні регіони Африки давно колонізовані Китаєм. Тому особливих впливів Московії там не світить. «Поглиблюючи розуміння», бункерний прагне показати, що не сидить у політичному карцері. Насправді ордер гаазького  Міжнародного кримінального суду (МКС) на арешт ізолював кремлівського карлика.
🇿🇦
 Ордер МКС перетворив Путіна на вигнанця навіть в очах африканських вождів. ПАР не може гарантувати недоторканності фюреру на саміт БРІКС в серпні. Очевидно, російський вождь зустріч пропустить.
🇮🇳
 Він побоявся їхати в Індію: саміт ШОС проведуть в онлайн-режимі в липні.
🇹🇷
 Він не поїде в Туреччину на інавгурацію Ердогана.
🇨🇳
 Китай, щоб дарма не турбувати ізольованого від світу Путіна, взагалі не запросив Росію на зустріч з країнами Центральної Азії: Казахстан, Узбекистан, Таджикистан, Туркменістан зустрілись з Сі в китайському Сіані без свого недавнього куратора. Ці країни впродовж 30 років перебували під впливом РФ, але Китай цинічно користується моментом і витісняє Москву.
Московія завжди вдавала з себе велику державу, змінюється лише конфігурація цієї величі. Спершу вона брала участь у G8 (G7+1), була повноправним членом G20, а тепер докотилася до "лідерства" у саміті найбідніших африканських держав. І виникає лише одне запитання, яка подія настане першою: у кремля завершаться гроші на африканські подачки чи у самих африканців зʼявиться почуття гідності.
Підписуйтеся на
«Орестократію».


[System]
The task is to classify FUD given wartime social media messages. Given a message, provide the evidence phrases, classification decision and a decimal confidence score from 0 to 1.

When analyzing wartime social media messages that contain Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), several recurring patterns can indicate true positives:

1. **Language of Despair or Hopelessness**: Messages that express sentiments suggesting inevitable loss, such as statements predicting that Ukraine "may only remain a 'piece'" or that the situation is "dire" or "hopeless." This language can convey a sense of impending doom.

2. **Doubts About Leadership**: References to mistrust or uncertainties regarding leaders, especially concerning military decisions or strategy (e.g., questions about the military's operational readiness, accusations against leaders for incompetence, or calls for accountability).

3. **Corruption and Accountability Issues**: Messages that highlight corruption within military or government structures, implying that mismanagement leads to poor outcomes for combat effectiveness or the well-being of soldiers, fostering an environment of suspicion and disillusionment.

4. **Concern About Civilian Safety**: Alarming reports of civilian casualties or potential threats to civilians from both military actions and governmental decisions can drive feelings of fear and uncertainty in the population.

5. **Criticism of Military Strategy or Mobilization**: Commentaries that question the efficacy of military mobilization efforts or criticize the leadership's handling of soldiers’ welfare and safety can suggest significant unease about the current operational environment.

6. **Negative Comparisons with Historical Events**: Allusions to past military failures or comparisons to historical conflicts that ended poorly often serve to evoke a sense of fear about the current situation, especially if similar patterns seem to emerge.

7. **Rumors and Speculation**: Messages that proliferate unverified information or conspiracy theories around military readiness, potential losses, or international relations can create an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.

8. **Appeals to Authority**: Citing supposed expert opinions or high-profile criticisms of the current military or government strategies implies that the situation is dire and that those in charge may not be capable of steering the country towards safety.

There is a variety of patterns that lead to false positives in a fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) language manipulation classification. Below are some identified patterns and justifications for why they might not warrant a classification of FUD:

1. **Predictive Statements about Future Events**:
   - Examples: "невдовзі настане день звільнення Криму"; "день розпаду росії"; "на межі третьої світової війни".
   - **Justification**: While these statements indicate anticipation of significant geopolitical events that can induce fear, they often reflect hope or optimism rather than an explicit intent to manipulate fear. They are forward-looking perspectives rather than typical FUD statements designed to undermine trust.

2. **Descriptive Phrases on Violence or Atrocity**:
   - Examples: "знищують українських нацистів"; "жертви серед цивільного населення"; "терористичний акт".
   - **Justification**: These phrases aim to describe ongoing adverse situations or historical contexts rather than creating fear directly. They document reality in a conflict zone, which can lead to emotional reactions but does not inherently indicate manipulative intent.

3. **Urgent Calls for Action**:
   - Examples: "долати будь-які виклики сьогодення"; "потрібно перемогти терор".
   - **Justification**: Such statements can evoke urgency but are often framed in a motivational context, urging active participation against threats, rather than generating fear for the sake of manipulation.

4. **Statements about Accountability and Legal Action**:
   - Examples: "зловживаючи службовими обов'язками", "винні повинні понести відповідальність".
   - **Justification**: These phrases emphasize justice or accountability in a wartime context and do not serve to instill fear. Instead, they reflect societal calls for legal and ethical standards during conflict.

5. **Statements of Resilience and National Spirit**:
   - Examples: "перемога буде за нами"; "братерство українського народу".
   - **Justification**: Celebratory and supportive language focused on resilience continuously reinforces morale. These sentiments counteract fear-based rhetoric.

6. **References to Political Dynamics**:
   - Examples: "внутрішній російський конфлікт"; "заяви міжнародних партнерів".
   - **Justification**: While discussing political instability may create anxiety due to potential repercussions, these statements often serve to provide context and are fundamental to analysis rather than FUD manipulation.

7. **Cautions and Warnings**:
   - Examples: "він може бути небезпечним"; "може загрожувати безпеці".
   - **Justification**: These are general cautionary advisories that are not about spreading panic but are instead relevant for public safety and communication.

8. **Demands for Truth and Transparency**:
   - Examples: "досліджуйте факти"; "повідомте правду".
   - **Justification**: Rather than driving fear, these statements advocate for clarity and fact-finding as necessary measures in response to FUD narratives.

By understanding these patterns, it's observable that many phrases do not align with the core elements of FUD manipulation, which include deliberate obfuscation of truth, panic-inducing language, and motives meant to create distrust. Instead, they often represent a mix of emotional responses, calls for justice, resilience, and inquiry into the truth within the context of a complex and emotional wartime narrative.

Analyzing the phrases that have triggered false positives in the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) language manipulation classifier reveals several identifiable patterns. While the classifier is designed to detect FUD language, many of the tested phrases do not fit into this category, highlighting potential areas of misunderstanding or overzealous classification.

### **Patterns Leading to False Positives:**

1. **Direct Reporting of Events:**
   - Phrases reporting facts about wartime incidents, such as "смерть ходить за ними," "протитанкові міни," or "обстріли мирного населення," may be mistaken for fearmongering, but they are simply factual recounts of events. The classifier potentially over-interprets these statements as attempts to incite fear.

2. **Expressions of Solidarity or Support:**
   - Messages expressing empathy or support towards victims or those affected, such as "Сумно на це дивитись" or "Ми переживаємо за наших людей," can be misclassified as manipulative language. Emotional expressions may be detected as signs of fear due to their inherent emotional content.

3. **Critique of Governments and Institutions:**
   - Statements criticizing the actions or policies of governments, whether about military strategies or humanitarian conditions, like "уряди у Варшаві, Парижі, Празі мають сприяти депортації," might trigger warnings. However, this critique is often part of a legitimate discourse on governance and not inherently a FUD tactic.

4. **Use of Hyperbolic Language in Contextual Commentary:**
   - Phrases using hyperbole to emphasize the gravity of situations (e.g., "росіяни, колективний путін дають нам відповіді щодо причин цієї війни") may trigger classifiers but reflect common rhetorical strategies rather than an intention to incite fear.

5. **Expressions of Concern Not Aligned With Manipulation:**
   - Warnings about potential future events or harm, such as "Загроза ракетних ударів зберігається високою по всій території України," are anticipated reactions to risky contexts. While they reflect concern, they also serve as cautions rather than manipulative or fear-inducing statements.

6. **Causal Linking and Societal Contexts:**
   - References to societal issues like terrorism, historical contexts, or systemic behaviors (e.g., "крові, зламаних доль, знищеного міжнародного права") may be treated as FUD, yet they merely present a narrative of ongoing struggles and should be assessed with a contextual lens.

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

- **Clarification of Content versus Intent:**
  The intent behind messages reporting factual incidents may vary significantly from those intended to manipulate emotions. The classifier must take into account the basis of claimed facts, as genuine reporting often does not aim to instill fear or doubt.

- **Empathy as a Response Mechanism:**
  Emotional responses during crises—while potentially fear-inducing—can also be critical for community solidarity and healing. The classifier should recognize expressions of empathy rather than categorizing them as FUD.

- **Criticism as Civic Engagement:**
  Critiques of political actions or systemic failures should be celebrated as valuable discourse instead of leading to automatic classification as fear-based language. Open discussions on governance are vital for democratic engagement and do not equate to spreading fear.

In conclusion, the patterns listed above suggest that phrases, which may initially appear FUD-like, should be closely analyzed within their specific context and intent. The classifier's criteria should allow for nuanced interpretations that distinguish between genuine communication about experiences during wartime and manipulative attempts to instill fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Strengthening contextual evaluation might enhance the classifier's accuracy in future assessments.

[User]
В картине мира каждого из нас именно он - центр Вселенной.
В картине мира большинства моих соотечественников Украина - центр мира.
Все из-за нас и для нас.
Но объективно мир устроен несколько иначе. И он (мир) меняется.
Говорят, не повезло тем, кому выпало жить во времена перемен.
О том кому «повезло» больше, кому меньше и что будет дальше - в следующем выпуске.
https://youtu.be/ijOpn6S5kTE

techniques

evidence_phrases justification fud confidence


[System]
The task is to classify FUD given wartime social media messages. Given a message, provide the evidence phrases, classification decision and a decimal confidence score from 0 to 1.

When analyzing wartime social media messages that contain Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), several recurring patterns can indicate true positives:

1. **Language of Despair or Hopelessness**: Messages that express sentiments suggesting inevitable loss, such as statements predicting that Ukraine "may only remain a 'piece'" or that the situation is "dire" or "hopeless." This language can convey a sense of impending doom.

2. **Doubts About Leadership**: References to mistrust or uncertainties regarding leaders, especially concerning military decisions or strategy (e.g., questions about the military's operational readiness, accusations against leaders for incompetence, or calls for accountability).

3. **Corruption and Accountability Issues**: Messages that highlight corruption within military or government structures, implying that mismanagement leads to poor outcomes for combat effectiveness or the well-being of soldiers, fostering an environment of suspicion and disillusionment.

4. **Concern About Civilian Safety**: Alarming reports of civilian casualties or potential threats to civilians from both military actions and governmental decisions can drive feelings of fear and uncertainty in the population.

5. **Criticism of Military Strategy or Mobilization**: Commentaries that question the efficacy of military mobilization efforts or criticize the leadership's handling of soldiers’ welfare and safety can suggest significant unease about the current operational environment.

6. **Negative Comparisons with Historical Events**: Allusions to past military failures or comparisons to historical conflicts that ended poorly often serve to evoke a sense of fear about the current situation, especially if similar patterns seem to emerge.

7. **Rumors and Speculation**: Messages that proliferate unverified information or conspiracy theories around military readiness, potential losses, or international relations can create an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.

8. **Appeals to Authority**: Citing supposed expert opinions or high-profile criticisms of the current military or government strategies implies that the situation is dire and that those in charge may not be capable of steering the country towards safety.

There is a variety of patterns that lead to false positives in a fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) language manipulation classification. Below are some identified patterns and justifications for why they might not warrant a classification of FUD:

1. **Predictive Statements about Future Events**:
   - Examples: "невдовзі настане день звільнення Криму"; "день розпаду росії"; "на межі третьої світової війни".
   - **Justification**: While these statements indicate anticipation of significant geopolitical events that can induce fear, they often reflect hope or optimism rather than an explicit intent to manipulate fear. They are forward-looking perspectives rather than typical FUD statements designed to undermine trust.

2. **Descriptive Phrases on Violence or Atrocity**:
   - Examples: "знищують українських нацистів"; "жертви серед цивільного населення"; "терористичний акт".
   - **Justification**: These phrases aim to describe ongoing adverse situations or historical contexts rather than creating fear directly. They document reality in a conflict zone, which can lead to emotional reactions but does not inherently indicate manipulative intent.

3. **Urgent Calls for Action**:
   - Examples: "долати будь-які виклики сьогодення"; "потрібно перемогти терор".
   - **Justification**: Such statements can evoke urgency but are often framed in a motivational context, urging active participation against threats, rather than generating fear for the sake of manipulation.

4. **Statements about Accountability and Legal Action**:
   - Examples: "зловживаючи службовими обов'язками", "винні повинні понести відповідальність".
   - **Justification**: These phrases emphasize justice or accountability in a wartime context and do not serve to instill fear. Instead, they reflect societal calls for legal and ethical standards during conflict.

5. **Statements of Resilience and National Spirit**:
   - Examples: "перемога буде за нами"; "братерство українського народу".
   - **Justification**: Celebratory and supportive language focused on resilience continuously reinforces morale. These sentiments counteract fear-based rhetoric.

6. **References to Political Dynamics**:
   - Examples: "внутрішній російський конфлікт"; "заяви міжнародних партнерів".
   - **Justification**: While discussing political instability may create anxiety due to potential repercussions, these statements often serve to provide context and are fundamental to analysis rather than FUD manipulation.

7. **Cautions and Warnings**:
   - Examples: "він може бути небезпечним"; "може загрожувати безпеці".
   - **Justification**: These are general cautionary advisories that are not about spreading panic but are instead relevant for public safety and communication.

8. **Demands for Truth and Transparency**:
   - Examples: "досліджуйте факти"; "повідомте правду".
   - **Justification**: Rather than driving fear, these statements advocate for clarity and fact-finding as necessary measures in response to FUD narratives.

By understanding these patterns, it's observable that many phrases do not align with the core elements of FUD manipulation, which include deliberate obfuscation of truth, panic-inducing language, and motives meant to create distrust. Instead, they often represent a mix of emotional responses, calls for justice, resilience, and inquiry into the truth within the context of a complex and emotional wartime narrative.

Analyzing the phrases that have triggered false positives in the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) language manipulation classifier reveals several identifiable patterns. While the classifier is designed to detect FUD language, many of the tested phrases do not fit into this category, highlighting potential areas of misunderstanding or overzealous classification.

### **Patterns Leading to False Positives:**

1. **Direct Reporting of Events:**
   - Phrases reporting facts about wartime incidents, such as "смерть ходить за ними," "протитанкові міни," or "обстріли мирного населення," may be mistaken for fearmongering, but they are simply factual recounts of events. The classifier potentially over-interprets these statements as attempts to incite fear.

2. **Expressions of Solidarity or Support:**
   - Messages expressing empathy or support towards victims or those affected, such as "Сумно на це дивитись" or "Ми переживаємо за наших людей," can be misclassified as manipulative language. Emotional expressions may be detected as signs of fear due to their inherent emotional content.

3. **Critique of Governments and Institutions:**
   - Statements criticizing the actions or policies of governments, whether about military strategies or humanitarian conditions, like "уряди у Варшаві, Парижі, Празі мають сприяти депортації," might trigger warnings. However, this critique is often part of a legitimate discourse on governance and not inherently a FUD tactic.

4. **Use of Hyperbolic Language in Contextual Commentary:**
   - Phrases using hyperbole to emphasize the gravity of situations (e.g., "росіяни, колективний путін дають нам відповіді щодо причин цієї війни") may trigger classifiers but reflect common rhetorical strategies rather than an intention to incite fear.

5. **Expressions of Concern Not Aligned With Manipulation:**
   - Warnings about potential future events or harm, such as "Загроза ракетних ударів зберігається високою по всій території України," are anticipated reactions to risky contexts. While they reflect concern, they also serve as cautions rather than manipulative or fear-inducing statements.

6. **Causal Linking and Societal Contexts:**
   - References to societal issues like terrorism, historical contexts, or systemic behaviors (e.g., "крові, зламаних доль, знищеного міжнародного права") may be treated as FUD, yet they merely present a narrative of ongoing struggles and should be assessed with a contextual lens.

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

- **Clarification of Content versus Intent:**
  The intent behind messages reporting factual incidents may vary significantly from those intended to manipulate emotions. The classifier must take into account the basis of claimed facts, as genuine reporting often does not aim to instill fear or doubt.

- **Empathy as a Response Mechanism:**
  Emotional responses during crises—while potentially fear-inducing—can also be critical for community solidarity and healing. The classifier should recognize expressions of empathy rather than categorizing them as FUD.

- **Criticism as Civic Engagement:**
  Critiques of political actions or systemic failures should be celebrated as valuable discourse instead of leading to automatic classification as fear-based language. Open discussions on governance are vital for democratic engagement and do not equate to spreading fear.

In conclusion, the patterns listed above suggest that phrases, which may initially appear FUD-like, should be closely analyzed within their specific context and intent. The classifier's criteria should allow for nuanced interpretations that distinguish between genuine communication about experiences during wartime and manipulative attempts to instill fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Strengthening contextual evaluation might enhance the classifier's accuracy in future assessments.

[User]
❗
❗
В информационном шуме очень
сложно найти проверенный  источник информации

🤷♂
📺

Метаметрика
 может помочь!
 Наши эксперты не скрываются за анонимными каналами,
работаем открыто! Говорим на острые темы!
🚿
 Мы умеем
соблюдать информационную гигиену
, вас тоже научим
🇷🇺

Наша
МетаВселенная
 исключительно разрешена Минюстом РФ, поэтому
Вам остаётся только
подписаться
 и следить за новыми анонсами


[System]
The task is to classify FUD given wartime social media messages. Given a message, provide the evidence phrases, classification decision and a decimal confidence score from 0 to 1.

When analyzing wartime social media messages that contain Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), several recurring patterns can indicate true positives:

1. **Language of Despair or Hopelessness**: Messages that express sentiments suggesting inevitable loss, such as statements predicting that Ukraine "may only remain a 'piece'" or that the situation is "dire" or "hopeless." This language can convey a sense of impending doom.

2. **Doubts About Leadership**: References to mistrust or uncertainties regarding leaders, especially concerning military decisions or strategy (e.g., questions about the military's operational readiness, accusations against leaders for incompetence, or calls for accountability).

3. **Corruption and Accountability Issues**: Messages that highlight corruption within military or government structures, implying that mismanagement leads to poor outcomes for combat effectiveness or the well-being of soldiers, fostering an environment of suspicion and disillusionment.

4. **Concern About Civilian Safety**: Alarming reports of civilian casualties or potential threats to civilians from both military actions and governmental decisions can drive feelings of fear and uncertainty in the population.

5. **Criticism of Military Strategy or Mobilization**: Commentaries that question the efficacy of military mobilization efforts or criticize the leadership's handling of soldiers’ welfare and safety can suggest significant unease about the current operational environment.

6. **Negative Comparisons with Historical Events**: Allusions to past military failures or comparisons to historical conflicts that ended poorly often serve to evoke a sense of fear about the current situation, especially if similar patterns seem to emerge.

7. **Rumors and Speculation**: Messages that proliferate unverified information or conspiracy theories around military readiness, potential losses, or international relations can create an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.

8. **Appeals to Authority**: Citing supposed expert opinions or high-profile criticisms of the current military or government strategies implies that the situation is dire and that those in charge may not be capable of steering the country towards safety.

There is a variety of patterns that lead to false positives in a fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) language manipulation classification. Below are some identified patterns and justifications for why they might not warrant a classification of FUD:

1. **Predictive Statements about Future Events**:
   - Examples: "невдовзі настане день звільнення Криму"; "день розпаду росії"; "на межі третьої світової війни".
   - **Justification**: While these statements indicate anticipation of significant geopolitical events that can induce fear, they often reflect hope or optimism rather than an explicit intent to manipulate fear. They are forward-looking perspectives rather than typical FUD statements designed to undermine trust.

2. **Descriptive Phrases on Violence or Atrocity**:
   - Examples: "знищують українських нацистів"; "жертви серед цивільного населення"; "терористичний акт".
   - **Justification**: These phrases aim to describe ongoing adverse situations or historical contexts rather than creating fear directly. They document reality in a conflict zone, which can lead to emotional reactions but does not inherently indicate manipulative intent.

3. **Urgent Calls for Action**:
   - Examples: "долати будь-які виклики сьогодення"; "потрібно перемогти терор".
   - **Justification**: Such statements can evoke urgency but are often framed in a motivational context, urging active participation against threats, rather than generating fear for the sake of manipulation.

4. **Statements about Accountability and Legal Action**:
   - Examples: "зловживаючи службовими обов'язками", "винні повинні понести відповідальність".
   - **Justification**: These phrases emphasize justice or accountability in a wartime context and do not serve to instill fear. Instead, they reflect societal calls for legal and ethical standards during conflict.

5. **Statements of Resilience and National Spirit**:
   - Examples: "перемога буде за нами"; "братерство українського народу".
   - **Justification**: Celebratory and supportive language focused on resilience continuously reinforces morale. These sentiments counteract fear-based rhetoric.

6. **References to Political Dynamics**:
   - Examples: "внутрішній російський конфлікт"; "заяви міжнародних партнерів".
   - **Justification**: While discussing political instability may create anxiety due to potential repercussions, these statements often serve to provide context and are fundamental to analysis rather than FUD manipulation.

7. **Cautions and Warnings**:
   - Examples: "він може бути небезпечним"; "може загрожувати безпеці".
   - **Justification**: These are general cautionary advisories that are not about spreading panic but are instead relevant for public safety and communication.

8. **Demands for Truth and Transparency**:
   - Examples: "досліджуйте факти"; "повідомте правду".
   - **Justification**: Rather than driving fear, these statements advocate for clarity and fact-finding as necessary measures in response to FUD narratives.

By understanding these patterns, it's observable that many phrases do not align with the core elements of FUD manipulation, which include deliberate obfuscation of truth, panic-inducing language, and motives meant to create distrust. Instead, they often represent a mix of emotional responses, calls for justice, resilience, and inquiry into the truth within the context of a complex and emotional wartime narrative.

Analyzing the phrases that have triggered false positives in the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) language manipulation classifier reveals several identifiable patterns. While the classifier is designed to detect FUD language, many of the tested phrases do not fit into this category, highlighting potential areas of misunderstanding or overzealous classification.

### **Patterns Leading to False Positives:**

1. **Direct Reporting of Events:**
   - Phrases reporting facts about wartime incidents, such as "смерть ходить за ними," "протитанкові міни," or "обстріли мирного населення," may be mistaken for fearmongering, but they are simply factual recounts of events. The classifier potentially over-interprets these statements as attempts to incite fear.

2. **Expressions of Solidarity or Support:**
   - Messages expressing empathy or support towards victims or those affected, such as "Сумно на це дивитись" or "Ми переживаємо за наших людей," can be misclassified as manipulative language. Emotional expressions may be detected as signs of fear due to their inherent emotional content.

3. **Critique of Governments and Institutions:**
   - Statements criticizing the actions or policies of governments, whether about military strategies or humanitarian conditions, like "уряди у Варшаві, Парижі, Празі мають сприяти депортації," might trigger warnings. However, this critique is often part of a legitimate discourse on governance and not inherently a FUD tactic.

4. **Use of Hyperbolic Language in Contextual Commentary:**
   - Phrases using hyperbole to emphasize the gravity of situations (e.g., "росіяни, колективний путін дають нам відповіді щодо причин цієї війни") may trigger classifiers but reflect common rhetorical strategies rather than an intention to incite fear.

5. **Expressions of Concern Not Aligned With Manipulation:**
   - Warnings about potential future events or harm, such as "Загроза ракетних ударів зберігається високою по всій території України," are anticipated reactions to risky contexts. While they reflect concern, they also serve as cautions rather than manipulative or fear-inducing statements.

6. **Causal Linking and Societal Contexts:**
   - References to societal issues like terrorism, historical contexts, or systemic behaviors (e.g., "крові, зламаних доль, знищеного міжнародного права") may be treated as FUD, yet they merely present a narrative of ongoing struggles and should be assessed with a contextual lens.

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

- **Clarification of Content versus Intent:**
  The intent behind messages reporting factual incidents may vary significantly from those intended to manipulate emotions. The classifier must take into account the basis of claimed facts, as genuine reporting often does not aim to instill fear or doubt.

- **Empathy as a Response Mechanism:**
  Emotional responses during crises—while potentially fear-inducing—can also be critical for community solidarity and healing. The classifier should recognize expressions of empathy rather than categorizing them as FUD.

- **Criticism as Civic Engagement:**
  Critiques of political actions or systemic failures should be celebrated as valuable discourse instead of leading to automatic classification as fear-based language. Open discussions on governance are vital for democratic engagement and do not equate to spreading fear.

In conclusion, the patterns listed above suggest that phrases, which may initially appear FUD-like, should be closely analyzed within their specific context and intent. The classifier's criteria should allow for nuanced interpretations that distinguish between genuine communication about experiences during wartime and manipulative attempts to instill fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Strengthening contextual evaluation might enhance the classifier's accuracy in future assessments.

[User]
Горноспасатель Донбасса: спасти человека – ВСЕГДА ГОТОВ
☎
 Уже 116 лет отмечается День работника горноспасательной службы Донбасса. В ноябре 2014 года Государственная военизированная горноспасательная служба вошла в состав МЧС ДНР.
🔘
Сотрудники ВГСЧ особого характера – выносливые, героические, смелые, человечные. Им регулярно приходиться оттачивать свои навыки на учениях, чтобы уже непосредственно в бою действовать слаженно и оперативно.
🔘
В случае аварии в шахте выезжает отделение из семи человек — спасатели и врач. Чтобы ликвидировать пожар под землей, одно горноспасательное отделение несёт на себе более 170 кг оборудования. Порой сотрудникам ВГСЧ отводятся считаные минуты, а то и секунды для оказания экстренной медицинской помощи.
🔘
С 2014 года в Республике, в том числе и на освобождённых территориях, было ликвидировано порядка 350 аварийных ситуаций, на поверхность выведено из шахт около 13 тысяч человек и свыше 7 тысяч человек получили первую медицинскую помощь.


[System]
The task is to classify FUD given wartime social media messages. Given a message, provide the evidence phrases, classification decision and a decimal confidence score from 0 to 1.

When analyzing wartime social media messages that contain Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), several recurring patterns can indicate true positives:

1. **Language of Despair or Hopelessness**: Messages that express sentiments suggesting inevitable loss, such as statements predicting that Ukraine "may only remain a 'piece'" or that the situation is "dire" or "hopeless." This language can convey a sense of impending doom.

2. **Doubts About Leadership**: References to mistrust or uncertainties regarding leaders, especially concerning military decisions or strategy (e.g., questions about the military's operational readiness, accusations against leaders for incompetence, or calls for accountability).

3. **Corruption and Accountability Issues**: Messages that highlight corruption within military or government structures, implying that mismanagement leads to poor outcomes for combat effectiveness or the well-being of soldiers, fostering an environment of suspicion and disillusionment.

4. **Concern About Civilian Safety**: Alarming reports of civilian casualties or potential threats to civilians from both military actions and governmental decisions can drive feelings of fear and uncertainty in the population.

5. **Criticism of Military Strategy or Mobilization**: Commentaries that question the efficacy of military mobilization efforts or criticize the leadership's handling of soldiers’ welfare and safety can suggest significant unease about the current operational environment.

6. **Negative Comparisons with Historical Events**: Allusions to past military failures or comparisons to historical conflicts that ended poorly often serve to evoke a sense of fear about the current situation, especially if similar patterns seem to emerge.

7. **Rumors and Speculation**: Messages that proliferate unverified information or conspiracy theories around military readiness, potential losses, or international relations can create an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.

8. **Appeals to Authority**: Citing supposed expert opinions or high-profile criticisms of the current military or government strategies implies that the situation is dire and that those in charge may not be capable of steering the country towards safety.

There is a variety of patterns that lead to false positives in a fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) language manipulation classification. Below are some identified patterns and justifications for why they might not warrant a classification of FUD:

1. **Predictive Statements about Future Events**:
   - Examples: "невдовзі настане день звільнення Криму"; "день розпаду росії"; "на межі третьої світової війни".
   - **Justification**: While these statements indicate anticipation of significant geopolitical events that can induce fear, they often reflect hope or optimism rather than an explicit intent to manipulate fear. They are forward-looking perspectives rather than typical FUD statements designed to undermine trust.

2. **Descriptive Phrases on Violence or Atrocity**:
   - Examples: "знищують українських нацистів"; "жертви серед цивільного населення"; "терористичний акт".
   - **Justification**: These phrases aim to describe ongoing adverse situations or historical contexts rather than creating fear directly. They document reality in a conflict zone, which can lead to emotional reactions but does not inherently indicate manipulative intent.

3. **Urgent Calls for Action**:
   - Examples: "долати будь-які виклики сьогодення"; "потрібно перемогти терор".
   - **Justification**: Such statements can evoke urgency but are often framed in a motivational context, urging active participation against threats, rather than generating fear for the sake of manipulation.

4. **Statements about Accountability and Legal Action**:
   - Examples: "зловживаючи службовими обов'язками", "винні повинні понести відповідальність".
   - **Justification**: These phrases emphasize justice or accountability in a wartime context and do not serve to instill fear. Instead, they reflect societal calls for legal and ethical standards during conflict.

5. **Statements of Resilience and National Spirit**:
   - Examples: "перемога буде за нами"; "братерство українського народу".
   - **Justification**: Celebratory and supportive language focused on resilience continuously reinforces morale. These sentiments counteract fear-based rhetoric.

6. **References to Political Dynamics**:
   - Examples: "внутрішній російський конфлікт"; "заяви міжнародних партнерів".
   - **Justification**: While discussing political instability may create anxiety due to potential repercussions, these statements often serve to provide context and are fundamental to analysis rather than FUD manipulation.

7. **Cautions and Warnings**:
   - Examples: "він може бути небезпечним"; "може загрожувати безпеці".
   - **Justification**: These are general cautionary advisories that are not about spreading panic but are instead relevant for public safety and communication.

8. **Demands for Truth and Transparency**:
   - Examples: "досліджуйте факти"; "повідомте правду".
   - **Justification**: Rather than driving fear, these statements advocate for clarity and fact-finding as necessary measures in response to FUD narratives.

By understanding these patterns, it's observable that many phrases do not align with the core elements of FUD manipulation, which include deliberate obfuscation of truth, panic-inducing language, and motives meant to create distrust. Instead, they often represent a mix of emotional responses, calls for justice, resilience, and inquiry into the truth within the context of a complex and emotional wartime narrative.

Analyzing the phrases that have triggered false positives in the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) language manipulation classifier reveals several identifiable patterns. While the classifier is designed to detect FUD language, many of the tested phrases do not fit into this category, highlighting potential areas of misunderstanding or overzealous classification.

### **Patterns Leading to False Positives:**

1. **Direct Reporting of Events:**
   - Phrases reporting facts about wartime incidents, such as "смерть ходить за ними," "протитанкові міни," or "обстріли мирного населення," may be mistaken for fearmongering, but they are simply factual recounts of events. The classifier potentially over-interprets these statements as attempts to incite fear.

2. **Expressions of Solidarity or Support:**
   - Messages expressing empathy or support towards victims or those affected, such as "Сумно на це дивитись" or "Ми переживаємо за наших людей," can be misclassified as manipulative language. Emotional expressions may be detected as signs of fear due to their inherent emotional content.

3. **Critique of Governments and Institutions:**
   - Statements criticizing the actions or policies of governments, whether about military strategies or humanitarian conditions, like "уряди у Варшаві, Парижі, Празі мають сприяти депортації," might trigger warnings. However, this critique is often part of a legitimate discourse on governance and not inherently a FUD tactic.

4. **Use of Hyperbolic Language in Contextual Commentary:**
   - Phrases using hyperbole to emphasize the gravity of situations (e.g., "росіяни, колективний путін дають нам відповіді щодо причин цієї війни") may trigger classifiers but reflect common rhetorical strategies rather than an intention to incite fear.

5. **Expressions of Concern Not Aligned With Manipulation:**
   - Warnings about potential future events or harm, such as "Загроза ракетних ударів зберігається високою по всій території України," are anticipated reactions to risky contexts. While they reflect concern, they also serve as cautions rather than manipulative or fear-inducing statements.

6. **Causal Linking and Societal Contexts:**
   - References to societal issues like terrorism, historical contexts, or systemic behaviors (e.g., "крові, зламаних доль, знищеного міжнародного права") may be treated as FUD, yet they merely present a narrative of ongoing struggles and should be assessed with a contextual lens.

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

- **Clarification of Content versus Intent:**
  The intent behind messages reporting factual incidents may vary significantly from those intended to manipulate emotions. The classifier must take into account the basis of claimed facts, as genuine reporting often does not aim to instill fear or doubt.

- **Empathy as a Response Mechanism:**
  Emotional responses during crises—while potentially fear-inducing—can also be critical for community solidarity and healing. The classifier should recognize expressions of empathy rather than categorizing them as FUD.

- **Criticism as Civic Engagement:**
  Critiques of political actions or systemic failures should be celebrated as valuable discourse instead of leading to automatic classification as fear-based language. Open discussions on governance are vital for democratic engagement and do not equate to spreading fear.

In conclusion, the patterns listed above suggest that phrases, which may initially appear FUD-like, should be closely analyzed within their specific context and intent. The classifier's criteria should allow for nuanced interpretations that distinguish between genuine communication about experiences during wartime and manipulative attempts to instill fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Strengthening contextual evaluation might enhance the classifier's accuracy in future assessments.

[User]
А ещё год назад это можно было исполнить с меньшими приключениями.
Но всё правильно сделали, нехуй там делать.


[System]
The task is to classify FUD given wartime social media messages. Given a message, provide the evidence phrases, classification decision and a decimal confidence score from 0 to 1.

When analyzing wartime social media messages that contain Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), several recurring patterns can indicate true positives:

1. **Language of Despair or Hopelessness**: Messages that express sentiments suggesting inevitable loss, such as statements predicting that Ukraine "may only remain a 'piece'" or that the situation is "dire" or "hopeless." This language can convey a sense of impending doom.

2. **Doubts About Leadership**: References to mistrust or uncertainties regarding leaders, especially concerning military decisions or strategy (e.g., questions about the military's operational readiness, accusations against leaders for incompetence, or calls for accountability).

3. **Corruption and Accountability Issues**: Messages that highlight corruption within military or government structures, implying that mismanagement leads to poor outcomes for combat effectiveness or the well-being of soldiers, fostering an environment of suspicion and disillusionment.

4. **Concern About Civilian Safety**: Alarming reports of civilian casualties or potential threats to civilians from both military actions and governmental decisions can drive feelings of fear and uncertainty in the population.

5. **Criticism of Military Strategy or Mobilization**: Commentaries that question the efficacy of military mobilization efforts or criticize the leadership's handling of soldiers’ welfare and safety can suggest significant unease about the current operational environment.

6. **Negative Comparisons with Historical Events**: Allusions to past military failures or comparisons to historical conflicts that ended poorly often serve to evoke a sense of fear about the current situation, especially if similar patterns seem to emerge.

7. **Rumors and Speculation**: Messages that proliferate unverified information or conspiracy theories around military readiness, potential losses, or international relations can create an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.

8. **Appeals to Authority**: Citing supposed expert opinions or high-profile criticisms of the current military or government strategies implies that the situation is dire and that those in charge may not be capable of steering the country towards safety.

There is a variety of patterns that lead to false positives in a fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) language manipulation classification. Below are some identified patterns and justifications for why they might not warrant a classification of FUD:

1. **Predictive Statements about Future Events**:
   - Examples: "невдовзі настане день звільнення Криму"; "день розпаду росії"; "на межі третьої світової війни".
   - **Justification**: While these statements indicate anticipation of significant geopolitical events that can induce fear, they often reflect hope or optimism rather than an explicit intent to manipulate fear. They are forward-looking perspectives rather than typical FUD statements designed to undermine trust.

2. **Descriptive Phrases on Violence or Atrocity**:
   - Examples: "знищують українських нацистів"; "жертви серед цивільного населення"; "терористичний акт".
   - **Justification**: These phrases aim to describe ongoing adverse situations or historical contexts rather than creating fear directly. They document reality in a conflict zone, which can lead to emotional reactions but does not inherently indicate manipulative intent.

3. **Urgent Calls for Action**:
   - Examples: "долати будь-які виклики сьогодення"; "потрібно перемогти терор".
   - **Justification**: Such statements can evoke urgency but are often framed in a motivational context, urging active participation against threats, rather than generating fear for the sake of manipulation.

4. **Statements about Accountability and Legal Action**:
   - Examples: "зловживаючи службовими обов'язками", "винні повинні понести відповідальність".
   - **Justification**: These phrases emphasize justice or accountability in a wartime context and do not serve to instill fear. Instead, they reflect societal calls for legal and ethical standards during conflict.

5. **Statements of Resilience and National Spirit**:
   - Examples: "перемога буде за нами"; "братерство українського народу".
   - **Justification**: Celebratory and supportive language focused on resilience continuously reinforces morale. These sentiments counteract fear-based rhetoric.

6. **References to Political Dynamics**:
   - Examples: "внутрішній російський конфлікт"; "заяви міжнародних партнерів".
   - **Justification**: While discussing political instability may create anxiety due to potential repercussions, these statements often serve to provide context and are fundamental to analysis rather than FUD manipulation.

7. **Cautions and Warnings**:
   - Examples: "він може бути небезпечним"; "може загрожувати безпеці".
   - **Justification**: These are general cautionary advisories that are not about spreading panic but are instead relevant for public safety and communication.

8. **Demands for Truth and Transparency**:
   - Examples: "досліджуйте факти"; "повідомте правду".
   - **Justification**: Rather than driving fear, these statements advocate for clarity and fact-finding as necessary measures in response to FUD narratives.

By understanding these patterns, it's observable that many phrases do not align with the core elements of FUD manipulation, which include deliberate obfuscation of truth, panic-inducing language, and motives meant to create distrust. Instead, they often represent a mix of emotional responses, calls for justice, resilience, and inquiry into the truth within the context of a complex and emotional wartime narrative.

Analyzing the phrases that have triggered false positives in the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) language manipulation classifier reveals several identifiable patterns. While the classifier is designed to detect FUD language, many of the tested phrases do not fit into this category, highlighting potential areas of misunderstanding or overzealous classification.

### **Patterns Leading to False Positives:**

1. **Direct Reporting of Events:**
   - Phrases reporting facts about wartime incidents, such as "смерть ходить за ними," "протитанкові міни," or "обстріли мирного населення," may be mistaken for fearmongering, but they are simply factual recounts of events. The classifier potentially over-interprets these statements as attempts to incite fear.

2. **Expressions of Solidarity or Support:**
   - Messages expressing empathy or support towards victims or those affected, such as "Сумно на це дивитись" or "Ми переживаємо за наших людей," can be misclassified as manipulative language. Emotional expressions may be detected as signs of fear due to their inherent emotional content.

3. **Critique of Governments and Institutions:**
   - Statements criticizing the actions or policies of governments, whether about military strategies or humanitarian conditions, like "уряди у Варшаві, Парижі, Празі мають сприяти депортації," might trigger warnings. However, this critique is often part of a legitimate discourse on governance and not inherently a FUD tactic.

4. **Use of Hyperbolic Language in Contextual Commentary:**
   - Phrases using hyperbole to emphasize the gravity of situations (e.g., "росіяни, колективний путін дають нам відповіді щодо причин цієї війни") may trigger classifiers but reflect common rhetorical strategies rather than an intention to incite fear.

5. **Expressions of Concern Not Aligned With Manipulation:**
   - Warnings about potential future events or harm, such as "Загроза ракетних ударів зберігається високою по всій території України," are anticipated reactions to risky contexts. While they reflect concern, they also serve as cautions rather than manipulative or fear-inducing statements.

6. **Causal Linking and Societal Contexts:**
   - References to societal issues like terrorism, historical contexts, or systemic behaviors (e.g., "крові, зламаних доль, знищеного міжнародного права") may be treated as FUD, yet they merely present a narrative of ongoing struggles and should be assessed with a contextual lens.

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

- **Clarification of Content versus Intent:**
  The intent behind messages reporting factual incidents may vary significantly from those intended to manipulate emotions. The classifier must take into account the basis of claimed facts, as genuine reporting often does not aim to instill fear or doubt.

- **Empathy as a Response Mechanism:**
  Emotional responses during crises—while potentially fear-inducing—can also be critical for community solidarity and healing. The classifier should recognize expressions of empathy rather than categorizing them as FUD.

- **Criticism as Civic Engagement:**
  Critiques of political actions or systemic failures should be celebrated as valuable discourse instead of leading to automatic classification as fear-based language. Open discussions on governance are vital for democratic engagement and do not equate to spreading fear.

In conclusion, the patterns listed above suggest that phrases, which may initially appear FUD-like, should be closely analyzed within their specific context and intent. The classifier's criteria should allow for nuanced interpretations that distinguish between genuine communication about experiences during wartime and manipulative attempts to instill fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Strengthening contextual evaluation might enhance the classifier's accuracy in future assessments.

[User]
❕
Представники НАТО обговорюють варіант поступок Києвом територій Росії в обмін на гарантії безпеки та прийом України до альянсу
, — газета
La Repubblica
Газета пише, що подібний сценарій не звучить в офіційних дискусіях, але піднімається неформально і стає дедалі реальнішим, особливо перед виборами до США.
Повідомляється, що рф запропонують залишити Крим та всі території, завойовані протягом двох років, а потім зафіксувати кордони та прийняти в НАТО те, що залишиться Україні. Такий варіант, нагадує видання, схожий на те, що сталося після Другої світової війни з поділом Німеччини на Східну, підконтрольну СРСР, і Західну.
@OKO_ua


[System]
The task is to classify FUD given wartime social media messages. Given a message, provide the evidence phrases, classification decision and a decimal confidence score from 0 to 1.

When analyzing wartime social media messages that contain Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), several recurring patterns can indicate true positives:

1. **Language of Despair or Hopelessness**: Messages that express sentiments suggesting inevitable loss, such as statements predicting that Ukraine "may only remain a 'piece'" or that the situation is "dire" or "hopeless." This language can convey a sense of impending doom.

2. **Doubts About Leadership**: References to mistrust or uncertainties regarding leaders, especially concerning military decisions or strategy (e.g., questions about the military's operational readiness, accusations against leaders for incompetence, or calls for accountability).

3. **Corruption and Accountability Issues**: Messages that highlight corruption within military or government structures, implying that mismanagement leads to poor outcomes for combat effectiveness or the well-being of soldiers, fostering an environment of suspicion and disillusionment.

4. **Concern About Civilian Safety**: Alarming reports of civilian casualties or potential threats to civilians from both military actions and governmental decisions can drive feelings of fear and uncertainty in the population.

5. **Criticism of Military Strategy or Mobilization**: Commentaries that question the efficacy of military mobilization efforts or criticize the leadership's handling of soldiers’ welfare and safety can suggest significant unease about the current operational environment.

6. **Negative Comparisons with Historical Events**: Allusions to past military failures or comparisons to historical conflicts that ended poorly often serve to evoke a sense of fear about the current situation, especially if similar patterns seem to emerge.

7. **Rumors and Speculation**: Messages that proliferate unverified information or conspiracy theories around military readiness, potential losses, or international relations can create an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.

8. **Appeals to Authority**: Citing supposed expert opinions or high-profile criticisms of the current military or government strategies implies that the situation is dire and that those in charge may not be capable of steering the country towards safety.

There is a variety of patterns that lead to false positives in a fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) language manipulation classification. Below are some identified patterns and justifications for why they might not warrant a classification of FUD:

1. **Predictive Statements about Future Events**:
   - Examples: "невдовзі настане день звільнення Криму"; "день розпаду росії"; "на межі третьої світової війни".
   - **Justification**: While these statements indicate anticipation of significant geopolitical events that can induce fear, they often reflect hope or optimism rather than an explicit intent to manipulate fear. They are forward-looking perspectives rather than typical FUD statements designed to undermine trust.

2. **Descriptive Phrases on Violence or Atrocity**:
   - Examples: "знищують українських нацистів"; "жертви серед цивільного населення"; "терористичний акт".
   - **Justification**: These phrases aim to describe ongoing adverse situations or historical contexts rather than creating fear directly. They document reality in a conflict zone, which can lead to emotional reactions but does not inherently indicate manipulative intent.

3. **Urgent Calls for Action**:
   - Examples: "долати будь-які виклики сьогодення"; "потрібно перемогти терор".
   - **Justification**: Such statements can evoke urgency but are often framed in a motivational context, urging active participation against threats, rather than generating fear for the sake of manipulation.

4. **Statements about Accountability and Legal Action**:
   - Examples: "зловживаючи службовими обов'язками", "винні повинні понести відповідальність".
   - **Justification**: These phrases emphasize justice or accountability in a wartime context and do not serve to instill fear. Instead, they reflect societal calls for legal and ethical standards during conflict.

5. **Statements of Resilience and National Spirit**:
   - Examples: "перемога буде за нами"; "братерство українського народу".
   - **Justification**: Celebratory and supportive language focused on resilience continuously reinforces morale. These sentiments counteract fear-based rhetoric.

6. **References to Political Dynamics**:
   - Examples: "внутрішній російський конфлікт"; "заяви міжнародних партнерів".
   - **Justification**: While discussing political instability may create anxiety due to potential repercussions, these statements often serve to provide context and are fundamental to analysis rather than FUD manipulation.

7. **Cautions and Warnings**:
   - Examples: "він може бути небезпечним"; "може загрожувати безпеці".
   - **Justification**: These are general cautionary advisories that are not about spreading panic but are instead relevant for public safety and communication.

8. **Demands for Truth and Transparency**:
   - Examples: "досліджуйте факти"; "повідомте правду".
   - **Justification**: Rather than driving fear, these statements advocate for clarity and fact-finding as necessary measures in response to FUD narratives.

By understanding these patterns, it's observable that many phrases do not align with the core elements of FUD manipulation, which include deliberate obfuscation of truth, panic-inducing language, and motives meant to create distrust. Instead, they often represent a mix of emotional responses, calls for justice, resilience, and inquiry into the truth within the context of a complex and emotional wartime narrative.

Analyzing the phrases that have triggered false positives in the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) language manipulation classifier reveals several identifiable patterns. While the classifier is designed to detect FUD language, many of the tested phrases do not fit into this category, highlighting potential areas of misunderstanding or overzealous classification.

### **Patterns Leading to False Positives:**

1. **Direct Reporting of Events:**
   - Phrases reporting facts about wartime incidents, such as "смерть ходить за ними," "протитанкові міни," or "обстріли мирного населення," may be mistaken for fearmongering, but they are simply factual recounts of events. The classifier potentially over-interprets these statements as attempts to incite fear.

2. **Expressions of Solidarity or Support:**
   - Messages expressing empathy or support towards victims or those affected, such as "Сумно на це дивитись" or "Ми переживаємо за наших людей," can be misclassified as manipulative language. Emotional expressions may be detected as signs of fear due to their inherent emotional content.

3. **Critique of Governments and Institutions:**
   - Statements criticizing the actions or policies of governments, whether about military strategies or humanitarian conditions, like "уряди у Варшаві, Парижі, Празі мають сприяти депортації," might trigger warnings. However, this critique is often part of a legitimate discourse on governance and not inherently a FUD tactic.

4. **Use of Hyperbolic Language in Contextual Commentary:**
   - Phrases using hyperbole to emphasize the gravity of situations (e.g., "росіяни, колективний путін дають нам відповіді щодо причин цієї війни") may trigger classifiers but reflect common rhetorical strategies rather than an intention to incite fear.

5. **Expressions of Concern Not Aligned With Manipulation:**
   - Warnings about potential future events or harm, such as "Загроза ракетних ударів зберігається високою по всій території України," are anticipated reactions to risky contexts. While they reflect concern, they also serve as cautions rather than manipulative or fear-inducing statements.

6. **Causal Linking and Societal Contexts:**
   - References to societal issues like terrorism, historical contexts, or systemic behaviors (e.g., "крові, зламаних доль, знищеного міжнародного права") may be treated as FUD, yet they merely present a narrative of ongoing struggles and should be assessed with a contextual lens.

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

- **Clarification of Content versus Intent:**
  The intent behind messages reporting factual incidents may vary significantly from those intended to manipulate emotions. The classifier must take into account the basis of claimed facts, as genuine reporting often does not aim to instill fear or doubt.

- **Empathy as a Response Mechanism:**
  Emotional responses during crises—while potentially fear-inducing—can also be critical for community solidarity and healing. The classifier should recognize expressions of empathy rather than categorizing them as FUD.

- **Criticism as Civic Engagement:**
  Critiques of political actions or systemic failures should be celebrated as valuable discourse instead of leading to automatic classification as fear-based language. Open discussions on governance are vital for democratic engagement and do not equate to spreading fear.

In conclusion, the patterns listed above suggest that phrases, which may initially appear FUD-like, should be closely analyzed within their specific context and intent. The classifier's criteria should allow for nuanced interpretations that distinguish between genuine communication about experiences during wartime and manipulative attempts to instill fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Strengthening contextual evaluation might enhance the classifier's accuracy in future assessments.

[User]
❗
ДТЕК Ахметова починає видобуток нафти у Полтавській області.
«Першу нафтову свердловину буде пробурено до кінця цього місяця. Це нове для нас. Вперше, коли наша компанія починає видобувати нафту.
Відповідно, вся інфраструктура для цього створюється, щоб ми стали гравцем на нафтовому ринку», – гендиректор Тимченко.
ТРУХА
⚡
Полтава
Надіслати новину


[System]
The task is to classify FUD given wartime social media messages. Given a message, provide the evidence phrases, classification decision and a decimal confidence score from 0 to 1.

When analyzing wartime social media messages that contain Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), several recurring patterns can indicate true positives:

1. **Language of Despair or Hopelessness**: Messages that express sentiments suggesting inevitable loss, such as statements predicting that Ukraine "may only remain a 'piece'" or that the situation is "dire" or "hopeless." This language can convey a sense of impending doom.

2. **Doubts About Leadership**: References to mistrust or uncertainties regarding leaders, especially concerning military decisions or strategy (e.g., questions about the military's operational readiness, accusations against leaders for incompetence, or calls for accountability).

3. **Corruption and Accountability Issues**: Messages that highlight corruption within military or government structures, implying that mismanagement leads to poor outcomes for combat effectiveness or the well-being of soldiers, fostering an environment of suspicion and disillusionment.

4. **Concern About Civilian Safety**: Alarming reports of civilian casualties or potential threats to civilians from both military actions and governmental decisions can drive feelings of fear and uncertainty in the population.

5. **Criticism of Military Strategy or Mobilization**: Commentaries that question the efficacy of military mobilization efforts or criticize the leadership's handling of soldiers’ welfare and safety can suggest significant unease about the current operational environment.

6. **Negative Comparisons with Historical Events**: Allusions to past military failures or comparisons to historical conflicts that ended poorly often serve to evoke a sense of fear about the current situation, especially if similar patterns seem to emerge.

7. **Rumors and Speculation**: Messages that proliferate unverified information or conspiracy theories around military readiness, potential losses, or international relations can create an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.

8. **Appeals to Authority**: Citing supposed expert opinions or high-profile criticisms of the current military or government strategies implies that the situation is dire and that those in charge may not be capable of steering the country towards safety.

There is a variety of patterns that lead to false positives in a fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) language manipulation classification. Below are some identified patterns and justifications for why they might not warrant a classification of FUD:

1. **Predictive Statements about Future Events**:
   - Examples: "невдовзі настане день звільнення Криму"; "день розпаду росії"; "на межі третьої світової війни".
   - **Justification**: While these statements indicate anticipation of significant geopolitical events that can induce fear, they often reflect hope or optimism rather than an explicit intent to manipulate fear. They are forward-looking perspectives rather than typical FUD statements designed to undermine trust.

2. **Descriptive Phrases on Violence or Atrocity**:
   - Examples: "знищують українських нацистів"; "жертви серед цивільного населення"; "терористичний акт".
   - **Justification**: These phrases aim to describe ongoing adverse situations or historical contexts rather than creating fear directly. They document reality in a conflict zone, which can lead to emotional reactions but does not inherently indicate manipulative intent.

3. **Urgent Calls for Action**:
   - Examples: "долати будь-які виклики сьогодення"; "потрібно перемогти терор".
   - **Justification**: Such statements can evoke urgency but are often framed in a motivational context, urging active participation against threats, rather than generating fear for the sake of manipulation.

4. **Statements about Accountability and Legal Action**:
   - Examples: "зловживаючи службовими обов'язками", "винні повинні понести відповідальність".
   - **Justification**: These phrases emphasize justice or accountability in a wartime context and do not serve to instill fear. Instead, they reflect societal calls for legal and ethical standards during conflict.

5. **Statements of Resilience and National Spirit**:
   - Examples: "перемога буде за нами"; "братерство українського народу".
   - **Justification**: Celebratory and supportive language focused on resilience continuously reinforces morale. These sentiments counteract fear-based rhetoric.

6. **References to Political Dynamics**:
   - Examples: "внутрішній російський конфлікт"; "заяви міжнародних партнерів".
   - **Justification**: While discussing political instability may create anxiety due to potential repercussions, these statements often serve to provide context and are fundamental to analysis rather than FUD manipulation.

7. **Cautions and Warnings**:
   - Examples: "він може бути небезпечним"; "може загрожувати безпеці".
   - **Justification**: These are general cautionary advisories that are not about spreading panic but are instead relevant for public safety and communication.

8. **Demands for Truth and Transparency**:
   - Examples: "досліджуйте факти"; "повідомте правду".
   - **Justification**: Rather than driving fear, these statements advocate for clarity and fact-finding as necessary measures in response to FUD narratives.

By understanding these patterns, it's observable that many phrases do not align with the core elements of FUD manipulation, which include deliberate obfuscation of truth, panic-inducing language, and motives meant to create distrust. Instead, they often represent a mix of emotional responses, calls for justice, resilience, and inquiry into the truth within the context of a complex and emotional wartime narrative.

Analyzing the phrases that have triggered false positives in the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) language manipulation classifier reveals several identifiable patterns. While the classifier is designed to detect FUD language, many of the tested phrases do not fit into this category, highlighting potential areas of misunderstanding or overzealous classification.

### **Patterns Leading to False Positives:**

1. **Direct Reporting of Events:**
   - Phrases reporting facts about wartime incidents, such as "смерть ходить за ними," "протитанкові міни," or "обстріли мирного населення," may be mistaken for fearmongering, but they are simply factual recounts of events. The classifier potentially over-interprets these statements as attempts to incite fear.

2. **Expressions of Solidarity or Support:**
   - Messages expressing empathy or support towards victims or those affected, such as "Сумно на це дивитись" or "Ми переживаємо за наших людей," can be misclassified as manipulative language. Emotional expressions may be detected as signs of fear due to their inherent emotional content.

3. **Critique of Governments and Institutions:**
   - Statements criticizing the actions or policies of governments, whether about military strategies or humanitarian conditions, like "уряди у Варшаві, Парижі, Празі мають сприяти депортації," might trigger warnings. However, this critique is often part of a legitimate discourse on governance and not inherently a FUD tactic.

4. **Use of Hyperbolic Language in Contextual Commentary:**
   - Phrases using hyperbole to emphasize the gravity of situations (e.g., "росіяни, колективний путін дають нам відповіді щодо причин цієї війни") may trigger classifiers but reflect common rhetorical strategies rather than an intention to incite fear.

5. **Expressions of Concern Not Aligned With Manipulation:**
   - Warnings about potential future events or harm, such as "Загроза ракетних ударів зберігається високою по всій території України," are anticipated reactions to risky contexts. While they reflect concern, they also serve as cautions rather than manipulative or fear-inducing statements.

6. **Causal Linking and Societal Contexts:**
   - References to societal issues like terrorism, historical contexts, or systemic behaviors (e.g., "крові, зламаних доль, знищеного міжнародного права") may be treated as FUD, yet they merely present a narrative of ongoing struggles and should be assessed with a contextual lens.

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

- **Clarification of Content versus Intent:**
  The intent behind messages reporting factual incidents may vary significantly from those intended to manipulate emotions. The classifier must take into account the basis of claimed facts, as genuine reporting often does not aim to instill fear or doubt.

- **Empathy as a Response Mechanism:**
  Emotional responses during crises—while potentially fear-inducing—can also be critical for community solidarity and healing. The classifier should recognize expressions of empathy rather than categorizing them as FUD.

- **Criticism as Civic Engagement:**
  Critiques of political actions or systemic failures should be celebrated as valuable discourse instead of leading to automatic classification as fear-based language. Open discussions on governance are vital for democratic engagement and do not equate to spreading fear.

In conclusion, the patterns listed above suggest that phrases, which may initially appear FUD-like, should be closely analyzed within their specific context and intent. The classifier's criteria should allow for nuanced interpretations that distinguish between genuine communication about experiences during wartime and manipulative attempts to instill fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Strengthening contextual evaluation might enhance the classifier's accuracy in future assessments.

[User]
Недооцінювати ворога та применшувати його небезпеку - погана тактика.
На сьогоднішній день у нашого ворога не те, щоб щось закінчувалось - у них набагато більше всіх ресурсів. Це і кількість людей, і кількість броньованої техніки та боєприпасів, безпілотників і тд. Більше того - вони створюють ще, закупають в інших країнах технології та деталі.
Досі вони можуть дозволити собі цілу добу гатити з артилерії по позиції, яку втратили чи не можуть повернути. Тисячі снарядів за добу - і позиція просто перестає існувати.
Так, ми знаходимо і в таких умовах способи вибивати ворога з позицій та наступати. Але дуже небезпечно себе обманювати та заспокоювати.
@MaksymZhorin

👊🏻


[System]
The task is to classify FUD given wartime social media messages. Given a message, provide the evidence phrases, classification decision and a decimal confidence score from 0 to 1.

When analyzing wartime social media messages that contain Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), several recurring patterns can indicate true positives:

1. **Language of Despair or Hopelessness**: Messages that express sentiments suggesting inevitable loss, such as statements predicting that Ukraine "may only remain a 'piece'" or that the situation is "dire" or "hopeless." This language can convey a sense of impending doom.

2. **Doubts About Leadership**: References to mistrust or uncertainties regarding leaders, especially concerning military decisions or strategy (e.g., questions about the military's operational readiness, accusations against leaders for incompetence, or calls for accountability).

3. **Corruption and Accountability Issues**: Messages that highlight corruption within military or government structures, implying that mismanagement leads to poor outcomes for combat effectiveness or the well-being of soldiers, fostering an environment of suspicion and disillusionment.

4. **Concern About Civilian Safety**: Alarming reports of civilian casualties or potential threats to civilians from both military actions and governmental decisions can drive feelings of fear and uncertainty in the population.

5. **Criticism of Military Strategy or Mobilization**: Commentaries that question the efficacy of military mobilization efforts or criticize the leadership's handling of soldiers’ welfare and safety can suggest significant unease about the current operational environment.

6. **Negative Comparisons with Historical Events**: Allusions to past military failures or comparisons to historical conflicts that ended poorly often serve to evoke a sense of fear about the current situation, especially if similar patterns seem to emerge.

7. **Rumors and Speculation**: Messages that proliferate unverified information or conspiracy theories around military readiness, potential losses, or international relations can create an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.

8. **Appeals to Authority**: Citing supposed expert opinions or high-profile criticisms of the current military or government strategies implies that the situation is dire and that those in charge may not be capable of steering the country towards safety.

There is a variety of patterns that lead to false positives in a fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) language manipulation classification. Below are some identified patterns and justifications for why they might not warrant a classification of FUD:

1. **Predictive Statements about Future Events**:
   - Examples: "невдовзі настане день звільнення Криму"; "день розпаду росії"; "на межі третьої світової війни".
   - **Justification**: While these statements indicate anticipation of significant geopolitical events that can induce fear, they often reflect hope or optimism rather than an explicit intent to manipulate fear. They are forward-looking perspectives rather than typical FUD statements designed to undermine trust.

2. **Descriptive Phrases on Violence or Atrocity**:
   - Examples: "знищують українських нацистів"; "жертви серед цивільного населення"; "терористичний акт".
   - **Justification**: These phrases aim to describe ongoing adverse situations or historical contexts rather than creating fear directly. They document reality in a conflict zone, which can lead to emotional reactions but does not inherently indicate manipulative intent.

3. **Urgent Calls for Action**:
   - Examples: "долати будь-які виклики сьогодення"; "потрібно перемогти терор".
   - **Justification**: Such statements can evoke urgency but are often framed in a motivational context, urging active participation against threats, rather than generating fear for the sake of manipulation.

4. **Statements about Accountability and Legal Action**:
   - Examples: "зловживаючи службовими обов'язками", "винні повинні понести відповідальність".
   - **Justification**: These phrases emphasize justice or accountability in a wartime context and do not serve to instill fear. Instead, they reflect societal calls for legal and ethical standards during conflict.

5. **Statements of Resilience and National Spirit**:
   - Examples: "перемога буде за нами"; "братерство українського народу".
   - **Justification**: Celebratory and supportive language focused on resilience continuously reinforces morale. These sentiments counteract fear-based rhetoric.

6. **References to Political Dynamics**:
   - Examples: "внутрішній російський конфлікт"; "заяви міжнародних партнерів".
   - **Justification**: While discussing political instability may create anxiety due to potential repercussions, these statements often serve to provide context and are fundamental to analysis rather than FUD manipulation.

7. **Cautions and Warnings**:
   - Examples: "він може бути небезпечним"; "може загрожувати безпеці".
   - **Justification**: These are general cautionary advisories that are not about spreading panic but are instead relevant for public safety and communication.

8. **Demands for Truth and Transparency**:
   - Examples: "досліджуйте факти"; "повідомте правду".
   - **Justification**: Rather than driving fear, these statements advocate for clarity and fact-finding as necessary measures in response to FUD narratives.

By understanding these patterns, it's observable that many phrases do not align with the core elements of FUD manipulation, which include deliberate obfuscation of truth, panic-inducing language, and motives meant to create distrust. Instead, they often represent a mix of emotional responses, calls for justice, resilience, and inquiry into the truth within the context of a complex and emotional wartime narrative.

Analyzing the phrases that have triggered false positives in the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) language manipulation classifier reveals several identifiable patterns. While the classifier is designed to detect FUD language, many of the tested phrases do not fit into this category, highlighting potential areas of misunderstanding or overzealous classification.

### **Patterns Leading to False Positives:**

1. **Direct Reporting of Events:**
   - Phrases reporting facts about wartime incidents, such as "смерть ходить за ними," "протитанкові міни," or "обстріли мирного населення," may be mistaken for fearmongering, but they are simply factual recounts of events. The classifier potentially over-interprets these statements as attempts to incite fear.

2. **Expressions of Solidarity or Support:**
   - Messages expressing empathy or support towards victims or those affected, such as "Сумно на це дивитись" or "Ми переживаємо за наших людей," can be misclassified as manipulative language. Emotional expressions may be detected as signs of fear due to their inherent emotional content.

3. **Critique of Governments and Institutions:**
   - Statements criticizing the actions or policies of governments, whether about military strategies or humanitarian conditions, like "уряди у Варшаві, Парижі, Празі мають сприяти депортації," might trigger warnings. However, this critique is often part of a legitimate discourse on governance and not inherently a FUD tactic.

4. **Use of Hyperbolic Language in Contextual Commentary:**
   - Phrases using hyperbole to emphasize the gravity of situations (e.g., "росіяни, колективний путін дають нам відповіді щодо причин цієї війни") may trigger classifiers but reflect common rhetorical strategies rather than an intention to incite fear.

5. **Expressions of Concern Not Aligned With Manipulation:**
   - Warnings about potential future events or harm, such as "Загроза ракетних ударів зберігається високою по всій території України," are anticipated reactions to risky contexts. While they reflect concern, they also serve as cautions rather than manipulative or fear-inducing statements.

6. **Causal Linking and Societal Contexts:**
   - References to societal issues like terrorism, historical contexts, or systemic behaviors (e.g., "крові, зламаних доль, знищеного міжнародного права") may be treated as FUD, yet they merely present a narrative of ongoing struggles and should be assessed with a contextual lens.

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

- **Clarification of Content versus Intent:**
  The intent behind messages reporting factual incidents may vary significantly from those intended to manipulate emotions. The classifier must take into account the basis of claimed facts, as genuine reporting often does not aim to instill fear or doubt.

- **Empathy as a Response Mechanism:**
  Emotional responses during crises—while potentially fear-inducing—can also be critical for community solidarity and healing. The classifier should recognize expressions of empathy rather than categorizing them as FUD.

- **Criticism as Civic Engagement:**
  Critiques of political actions or systemic failures should be celebrated as valuable discourse instead of leading to automatic classification as fear-based language. Open discussions on governance are vital for democratic engagement and do not equate to spreading fear.

In conclusion, the patterns listed above suggest that phrases, which may initially appear FUD-like, should be closely analyzed within their specific context and intent. The classifier's criteria should allow for nuanced interpretations that distinguish between genuine communication about experiences during wartime and manipulative attempts to instill fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Strengthening contextual evaluation might enhance the classifier's accuracy in future assessments.

[User]
🕯
 Наші воїни – майстри своєї справи!
➡
 Вони влучно та ефективно знищують повітряні цілі ворога, захищаючи українське небо.
🩵
💛
Захисники країни - це не лише наша гордість, але й надія на мирне та безпечне майбутнє.
Фото:Oleksandr Kozlovskyi