[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]
У истории с внесением австрийского Райффайзенбанка в украинский список «спонсоров войны» (из-за чего Австрия наложила вето на 12-й пакет антироссийских санкций ЕС и отозвало его после того, как банк из списка исключили ) есть и практический аспект.
На фоне претензий от украинских властей в том, что Райффайзен продолжает работу в РФ, его украинскую «дочку» отстранили от программы кредитования бизнеса «5-7-9» (кредиты для бизнеса под маленький процент), который приносит банкам неплохой доход.
И до сих пор, к слову, в этой программе не восстановили.
«К сожалению, Райффайзенбанк не восстановил работу по кредитной госпрограмме 5-7-9%. Как только вернёмся к ней - будет официальное заявление руководства. Мы приостановили работу по 5-7-9% около года назад", - сообщили "Стране" в банке.
На сайте Фонда развития предпринимательства (ведёт программу 5-7-9%) Райффайзенбанка также нет в списке банков-партнеров.
Является ли возвращение банка в эту программу одним из условий Австрии по снятию вето на антироссийские санкции - увидим в ближайшее время.


[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]
Арестович. Новая версия событий в Днепре.
Советник Офиса президента сегодня уже не уверен, что ракету, попавшую в жилой дом в Днепре,
сбила ПВО.
Он написал новый пост в Facebook, в котором объяснил, что
версию, озвученную им, ему "подсказал" знакомый бывший ПВОшник из Днепра
. И на самом деле,
это было лишь предположение Арестовича, а не утверждение.
 И вообще Арестович сильно устал, а зритель должен сам во всем разобраться.
"Мой товарищ, бывший ПВОшник, шёл по улице в момент попадания. Он мне сказал, что на 100% слышал два взрыва и опознал, первый как работу ПВО. До сих пор он не ошибался. И был уверен, что ракету сбили.
Месседж должен был бы звучать так:
 - Есть версия, что сбила ракета ПВО. Есть такие-то признаки в ее пользу. Есть другая версия - прямое попадание в дом.
А потом - то да се, да отвлеклись, да пошли по другой линии, это живой эфир. Если бы я был хоть чуть-чуть в форме, то вытянул бы линию"
, — написал советник ОП.

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]
❗
Торгівельні організації Бельгії, Австрії, Нідерландів та Італії закликали «всі компанії ЄС» бойкотувати польських автоперевізників, що блокують кордон з Україною
🇺🇦
Підписатись

|
Запропонувати 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]
Нацполіція передала Збройним силам України арештовані двигуни до танків та броньованих машин

Спритники намагалися продати це майно, походження якого встановлюється, Міністерству оборони України. При цьому різниця між фактичною вартістю та комерційною пропозицією становить понад 53,7 млн грн.
Двигуни та інше військове обладнання до військової техніки, а також прилади нічного бачення вилучили та арештували в рамках розслідування кримінального провадження.
🔫
 Зокрема йшлося про двигуни до
броньованих машин і танків, у тому числі Т-72
.
За результатом проведеної експертизи, вартість вилучених двигунів становить 23,4 млн грн. Натомість спритники
планували продати його державі за понад 77 млн грн.
🔗
Деталі

🎞
Відео


[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]
🤯
 Отже,
понеділок минув, Штати не розвалились
. Значить, що? Значить тепер Україна ця ваша розвалиться, звичайно ж. В любой момєнт. Очєнь даже можливо, що вже навіть прямо завтра.
Ждьом, що вже там.


[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]
❗
Помощники Байдена обнаружили новую партию секретных документов — вне связанного с президентом вашингтонского офиса, — СМИ  Подписаться / Прислать новость


[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]
Очередные злоупотребления АРМА - топслужащий написал жалобу Главе государства и был уволен с должности
Владислав Романов, экс-руководитель Центрального межрегионального управления агентства,
обратился
 к Зеленскому с призывом предотвратить огромные риски для Украины, которые наносит АРМА во главе с А.Дума. В своем письме он указывает, что "властные полномочия фактически переданы внештатным советникам, а Председатель постоянно общается с коллегами матом и криком".
Как пишет топ-сотрудник АРМА, один из таких советников Вадим Грона под запись камер видеонаблюдения избил Романова и при свидетелях угрожал ему расправой после отказа выполнять незаконные поручения в отношении активов крупного производителя минеральной воды. Кроме того, он вместе с другим таким советником, решали судьбу сети "заправок Медведчука" Glusko на заседании, где вообще не было профильных официальных представителей АРМА.
В.Романов призывает привлечь к ответственности виновных должностных лиц и обеспечить соблюдение норм законодательства.
Сейчас Романов уволен, а руководитель АРМА Елена Дума
рапортует
 в своем ТГ-канале об "очищении рядов" АРМА.
Инсайдер UA  |

Подписаться


[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]
Угорщина заявила, що не блокуватиме наступний транш військової допомоги Україні від ЄС сумою €500 млн.
А що случілось вже?


[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]
❇

100 лет – это только начало
Под таким названием в Амвросиевке прошел праздник в честь 100-летнего юбилея района.
Реализовали проведение праздника Амурский областной благотворительный фонд «Твори добро», при помощи Ресурсного центра НКО в Донецкой Народной Республике. Праздник состоялся при поддержке шефа-региона – Амурской области – и выигранного гранта от Президентского Фонда Культурных Инициатив.
Представитель Ресурсного центра поддержки НКО ДНР Наталья Заика рассказала, что для жителей было подготовлено несколько локаций с праздничными мероприятиями. Организаторы закупили техническое оборудование, сделали праздничное украшение всех локаций, закупили подарки для детей, а также пригласили к выступлению музыкальные коллективы из других регионов России.
Читать полностью...