[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]
📲
Як законопроєкт № 9463 покращить зв’язок в Україні? Нацроумінг назавжди, спід-тести та моніторинг швидкості мобільного інтернету
У Парламенті зареєстрували законопроєкт, що дасть змогу українцям бути на зв’язку та з 4G, незважаючи на покриття власного оператора. Також повідомляти державі про «білі плями» з проблемним зв’язком.
Крім цього, одним із показників якості зв’язку стане швидкість мобільного інтернету. Так держава зможе моніторити і впливати на нього, щоб українці будь-де зумилися зі смартфона або обмінювалися файлами без Wi-Fi.
Гортайте фото, щоб дізнатися більше, які зміни чекають на абонентів після ухвалення законопроєкту № 9463
👉

🖼
Наступний крок — читання в Парламенті. Очікуємо, що більшість депутатів підтримають законопроєкт, а поганий зв’язок піде в минуле
🇺🇦


[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]
Уже восемнадцатый день, как друг и бизнес-партнёр президента
Тимошенко
 ворует в тылу у тех, кто воюет на фронте.

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]
🇷🇺
Пять лет назад, 31 августа 2018 года, Его не стало... Первого Главы ДНР, Героя ДНР Александра Захарченко
Человека, который первым поднял знамя борьбы, чтобы Донбасс вернулся в Россию.
Руководители регионального и донецкого городского местного отделений Единой России пришли к месту гибели Александра Владимировича, чтобы почтить бессмертную память о Бате.
#ЕРДНР

#ЕдинаяРоссия

#Мыпомним


[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]
ВП ВС висловилася щодо поновлення міській раді строку на апеляційне оскарження рішення, ухваленого 9 років тому

У 2009 році позивачка звернулася до суду з вимогою до органів державної влади у сфері земельних відносин про визнання за нею як за єдиною спадкоємницею першої черги права власності на земельну ділянку в центрі Львова. Вона зазначала, що її батько, який помер у 1996 році, залишив у спадщину цю ділянку. Позивачка, за її словами, багато років обробляла вказану ділянку, але документально набуття права на спадщину не оформила. Заповіт батько не зробив. Суд першої інстанції задовольнив позов.
У 2018 році міська рада подала апеляційну скаргу на це рішення, просила поновити строк на його апеляційне оскарження, скасувати рішення та відмовити в задоволенні позову. Міська рада мотивувала цю скаргу тим, що суд вирішив справу про права й обов’язки власника земельної ділянки, не залучивши останнього до участі у справі.
Апеляційний суд після відновлення матеріалів втраченого судового провадження поновив строк на апеляційне оскарження та задовольнив вимоги міської ради. Вказав, зокрема, на те, що позивачка після смерті батька подала разом з її матір’ю заяви нотаріусу про відмову від прийняття спадщини. Спадщину прийняла сестра позивачки. Тому позивачка не мала підстав просити про визнання за нею як за єдиною спадкоємницею першої черги права власності на земельну ділянку, яка не ввійшла до складу спадщини. Крім того, немає відомостей про рішення щодо виділення цієї ділянки в користування батькові позивачки, яким керувався суд першої інстанції, вважаючи цю ділянку спадковим майном.
Позивачка оскаржила рішення суду апеляційної інстанції до Верховного Суду. Вона стверджувала, що апеляційний суд, поновлюючи строк на апеляційне оскарження, не врахував висновків, сформульованих у постановах ВС, про застосування передбаченого абз. 3 ч. 3 ст. 297 ЦПК України в редакції Закону України від 20 грудня 2011 року № 4176-VI «Про внесення змін до деяких законів України щодо вдосконалення порядку здійснення судочинства» (набрав чинності 15 січня 2012 року) присічного річного строку на апеляційне оскарження рішення суду першої інстанції органом місцевого самоврядування. Доводів щодо неправильного застосування норм матеріального права позивачка не навела.
Велика Палата Верховного Суду звернула увагу на те, що міськрада діє у спірних матеріальних правовідносинах як представник інтересів власника земельної ділянки – відповідної територіальної громади. Позивачка замість такого власника відповідачами вказала органи державної влади, які є неналежними за вимогою про визнання права власності на ділянку. Ні міськрада, ні інший орган місцевого самоврядування Львова не були залученими до участі у справі.
Попри це суд першої інстанції вирішив питання про право власності територіальної громади, задовольнивши позов 7 серпня 2009 року, тобто задовго до набрання чинності Законом № 4176-VI, правила якого щодо присічного річного строку на апеляційне оскарження діяли до набрання 15 грудня 2017 року чинності Законом № 2147-VIII «Про внесення змін до Господарського процесуального кодексу України, Цивільного процесуального кодексу України, Кодексу адміністративного судочинства України та інших законодавчих актів».
Тільки 3 вересня 2018 року, тобто після набрання чинності Законом № 2147-VIII, представник міськради отримав копію рішення суду першої інстанції, а 2 жовтня того ж року подав апеляційну скаргу на це рішення. Тому суд апеляційної інстанції обґрунтовано поновив строк на апеляційне оскарження з метою захисту прав та інтересів територіальної громади.
Детальніше –
https://bit.ly/3NJkGMl
.
Постанова ВП ВС від 14 грудня 2022 року у справі № 2-3887/2009 (провадження № 4-36цс21) –
https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/109390156
.
Із цією та іншими правовими позиціями Верховного Суду можна ознайомитися в Базі правових позицій Верховного Суду –
lpd.court.gov.ua/login
.
#Верховний_Суд

#ВС

#ВП_ВС

#преклюзивний_строк

#право_на_апеляційне_оскарження


[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]
⚡
Российская Федерация будет оказывать поддержку Абхазии в обеспечение
военной безопасности,
 — Владимир Путин
#бит_РФ


[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]
⚡
Володимир Зеленський запропонував західним країнам припинити платити українським біженцям і передати ці гроші до бюджету України
"Наприклад, якась людина виїхала, перебуває за кордоном і отримує підтримку від Німеччини. Ми дякуємо за те, що ви підтримуєте наших громадян, але буває так, що ця людина отримує підтримку і від вас, і від нас. Тому я завжди казав, що для нас набагато краще, якби Німеччина підтримувала українців, даючи гроші до бюджету України. А потім Україна вже перерозподіляла б ці гроші, залежно від того, де знаходиться ця людина", — про це президент заявив німецькому телеканалу ARD.
Підписатись N
⚡
C
📷

Прислати 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]
🇺🇦
На Сумщині енергетиків, які загинули під час виконання професійних обов'язків, відзначили почесними нагородами (посмертно)
✅
Начальник Сумської обласної військової адміністрації Володимир АРТЮХ вручив ордени «За мужність» ІІІ ступеня родинам героїв, які у 2022-2023 роках загинули внаслідок злочинних дій російських окупантів при виконанні своїх професійних обов’язків щодо забезпечення роботи об’єктів критичної інфраструктури, відновлення енергопостачання та зруйнованих ворогом електромереж.
💬
«На жаль, ворог знищує нашу критичну інфраструктуру, а головне – цинічно вбиває цивільних людей. Ці нелюди не зважають, що це не військові, що вони виконують цілком мирні і життєво важливі завдання із забезпечення громадян енергопостачанням. Низький уклін і шана загиблим, які з початком війни не покинули власного бойового посту, до останньої хвилини життя з честю і гідністю виконували свої професійні обов’язки», – сказав очільник області.
➡

http://surl.li/qgvto


[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]
Якусь суєта в Москві. Прохання
🔞
Насправді це навіть не мінімум того, що росія принесла в Україну
Було б добре, якби це відбувалось з військовими рф і тими, хто підтримує тероризм російської армії
Kravchuk | підписатись


[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]
⚠
Цього тижня, Житомирська та Київська області лідирують за кількістю порушень вимог природоохоронного законодавства суб’єктами господарювання.
☑
Відтак, інспекцією Поліського округу проведено розрахунок збитків на суму
1 млн 834 тис. 407 грн. за незаконну вирубку невстановленими особами 1021 дерева на землях комунальної власності Новогуйвинської селищної ради за межами с. Рудня Городище Житомирського району.
☑
 А, інспекцією Столичного округу проведено розрахунок збитків та пред’явлено претензію ТОВ «Цегла вашого дому» на суму 697 тис. 872 грн. за самовільне користування надрами у ході провадження господарської діяльності із видобутку корисних копалин на Центральній ділянці Трипільського родовища.
📌
Слідчі дії тривають, матеріали направлені у відповідні органи.
➡
Крім того, з 27 січня по 02 лютого 2023 року територіальними та міжрегіональними територіальними  органами Державної екологічної інспекції України проведено 39 природоохоронних заходів, складено 122 протоколи про адміністративні правопорушення.
🔻
Загалом, за порушення вимог природоохоронного законодавства розраховано збитків на суму 3 млн 441 тис. гривень.
🔺
До державного бюджету стягнуто 1 млн 424 тис. гривень збитків у добровільному та примусовому порядку.
🇺🇦
 Працюємо на перемогу!