[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]
47 бригада в бою.
Зараз бачу
публічний
 конфлікт між Валерієм Маркусом та Іваном Шаламагою. Валерій виклав публічне обвинувачення.
Це їхня справа.
Але бачу як уже інтернет-диванні батальйони почали обзивати Шаламагу «совковий офіцер».
Заткніться, шановні.
За Маркуса додам, що він не тиловий, хоче і пробує приймати участь в діяльності поближче до бою.
А за Шаламагу нагадаю:
«Іван Шаламага (позивний – Бескид) народився та виріс у місті Сколе Львівської області. Він – випускник Львівського ліцею з посиленою військово-фізичною підготовкою імені Героїв Крут і Національної академії сухопутних військ імені Гетьмана Петра Сагайдачного. Іванові був 21 рік, коли вперше після закінчення навчання у 2018-му вирушив на фронт. Разом із побратимами обороняли Світлодарську дугу, Попасну, Новолуганське, Зайцеве, а згодом брав участь у бойових діях в районі Вуглегірської ТЕС.
У свої 25 Бескид уже отримав звання капітана Збройних сил України, став наймолодшим командиром полку в історії української армії, а згодом – заступником командира бригади.»
Поранений офіцер про Шаламагу:
«Він дуже грамотний офіцер.
Не сцикун. З яйцями.
Розвинутий фізично, духовно, професійно.
Націоналіст.
Поціновувач традиційних нормальних цінностей».
Євген Карась


[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]
#ДоступніЛіки
Препарати з програми “Доступні ліки”, призначені лікарем, потрібно приймати безперервно. Тому слід контролювати їх наявність та вчасно звертатися за новим рецептом.
📌
Новий рецепт на “Доступні ліки” та інсуліни лікар може виписати до закінчення строку попереднього електронного рецепту:
-за 7 днів, якщо попередній рецепт розрахований на 21 і більше днів;
-за 3 дні, якщо ліків у попередньому рецепті  менш ніж на 21 день.
Тож радимо контролювати кількість лікарського засобу, який залишився і не чекати поки препарат повністю закінчиться, щоб отримати новий рецепт.
📌
Термін дії електронного рецепту становить 30 днів з дати виписування такого рецепту.
На час воєнного стану лікар може виписати як електронний, так і паперовий рецепт. Вони однаково чинні та мають один термін дії.

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]
Цього красунчика білявого звати Даня. Днями він оформив офіційно свої стосунки в загниваючій Європі.
І все би нічого, але його прізвище Соловйов, а його батька звати Володимир
🤗
Мабуть збіг
😃


[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]
Троє воїнів із Полтавщини повернулися з полону!
Старший солдат ЗСУ Максим Глушко із Кременчуцького району потрапив у полон у Маріуполі.
Молодший сержант, командир відділу Нацгвардії Іван Срібний із Семенівської громади полонений на Запоріжжі.
Солдат ЗСУ Артем Стребко з Новосанжарської громади потрапив у полон на Донеччині.
Нині вони перебувають на реабілітації та тримають зв’язок із рідними.
Загалом, учора був один із найбільших обмінів полоненими. Додому повернулися 230 українських воїнів із різних підрозділів. Багатьох вважали зниклими безвісти. Тож для рідних учора було справжнє свято, дізнатися, що батько, син чи брат – живий!
Вітаємо наших захисників удома!
🇺🇦


[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]
29 вересня Кабінет Міністрів України прийняв рішення щодо вдосконалення механізму подачі заявки до резерву для державної служби на деокупованих територіях.
Охочим долучитися до кадрового резерву більше не потрібно буде проходити мотиваційний опитувальник і тест на загальну ерудицію.
Заповнювати анкету відтепер можна лише українською мовою. За достовірність інформації відповідатиме особа, яка її подала.
Нагадаємо, що платформа резерву державних службовців для деокупованих територій працює в Україні вже майже 3 місяці. За цей час у системі зареєстровано вже близько 2 тисяч анкет від охочих приєднатися до відновлення України. З них: 1795 зараховано, 198 відхилено; 1131 анкету подали чоловіки, 866 анкет - жінки.  Більшість обирає для майбутньої роботи саме Крим, хоча також є можливість обрати всі регіони, які перебувають або перебували під окупацією: Луганщину, Запоріжжя, Харківщину тощо.

Стати частиною резерву відновлення можна шляхом заповнення анкети на порталі НАДС:
https://reserve.nads.gov.ua/


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

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

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

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

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

[User]
Ще в 4му, та 13-14 році я казав, всі ті революції без люстрації через петлю на суку, то таке.
Всі ті люстрації в смітниках, така ж хуйня як і вставання без взуття на лавочки та дорування квітів беркутні...
Якщо всю цю йобань, як і русню, не топити в їх крові, вони повернуться і повертаються.
Я вірю, що як тільки ми закопаємо останнього кацапюру яка прийшла зі зброєю на нашу землю, ми зможемо всю цю йобань яка смокче кров з нашої держави, втопити в їх же лайні.
Бо ці підари повинні лишитися не тільки своїх посад, а і грошей, статків і майна. І їх сім'ї.
Якщо я не прав, то в чому?


[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]
Абсолютно дико наблюдать, как контора сейчас лениво и надменно отгавкивается от публичных обвинений со стороны Приднестровья вместо того, чтобы оперативно развернуть обстоятельную информационную кампанию с опровержениями и надавить на чувствительные точки самих приднестровцев. При том что обвинения фактурные и очень серьезные. И, что хуже всего, не вполне безосновательные.
Пробеб со стороны службы был да еще какой. По факту именно неадекватный наплевательский подход СБУ к работе с агентурой привел к сложившейся ситуации. Использование граждан Украины в качестве агентов внедрения, легендированных, как беженцы, для тех целей, которые изначально возлагались на по итогу раскрытую агентурную ячейку, было само по себе непрофессиональным и неоправданным решением с высокими рисками. И последствия этого решения, которые мы сейчас наблюдаем, если контора спустит все на тормозах, могут перерасти в крупный международный скандал. Никого уже не волнует, что обвинения в покушении – брехня. Мы сами дали марионеточному правительству Приднестровья карт-бланш на то, чтобы теперь поливать нас грязью, как им вздумается, фактически держа в заложниках украинских граждан – реальных беженцев, которых служба фактически подставила под удар, используя как прикрытие для своих операций. Очень советую пересмотреть заявление Красносельского: он в нем открыто подчеркивает, насколько жестко скандал с агентурой может сказаться на украинских беженцах, лицемерно скрывая угрозу за призывом не «устраивать охоту на ведьм».
Думать, что русня упустит шанс разыграть эту карту в удобный момент – суицидальная наивность.
В самой контроре сейчас безусловно полетят головы. Подобные затишья – надежный маркер проводимой работы над ошибками и выявления виноватых. Но, повторюсь, мало просто найти козлов отпущения и назидательно выпороть перед строем. Нужны коренные системные изменения рабочих алгоритмов – это раз. И два – необходима встречная информационная кампания, возможно даже потребуется задействовать какие-то рычаги давления или даже подключить дипломатические средства, но замять инцидент на билатеральном уровне. Просто пукнуть в подконтрольные СМИ, что панч хуйня и вообще это все приднестровские сепары навыдумывали, не прокатит. Потому что под удар попадут украинские граждане.
Сразу скажу, что претензии по типу «а что украинские граждане забыли в проруснявом Приднестровье?» бессмысленны по своей сути. Во-первых, когда поток беженцев хлынул из Украины в ближайшее зарубежье, власти такой расклад вполне устроил, вопрос никто не взял на контроль. Сами люди при этом просто бежали туда, где их были готовы принять, и очень странно теперь надевать белое пальто и винить их за желание выжить и вывезти семьи. Ну и главный аргумент: государство обязано защищать своих граждан независимо от того удобно ему это или нет – это непреложный закон правового демократического государства.


[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]
Мужчина, напавший с ножом на священника Винницкой епархии УПЦ,
состоит на учете в психоневрологическом диспансере
, —
Нацполиция
Задержанному 47 лет, ранее он не имел проблем с законом. Также правоохранители уточнили, что
 ранения священнику он нанес не ножом, а опасной бритвой
.
Подписаться
 /
Прислать новость


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

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

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

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

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

[User]
У цей день, 16 липня, в далекому 1990-му українці прийняли Декларацію про державний суверенітет України. З того часу минуло 33 роки. Багато що відбулось, багато що змінилось.
Але російські полонені досі кажуть, що не очікували такого спротиву та стійкості.
Ну, значить, росіяни так нічого і не второпали: ані тоді, у 1990-му, ані у 1991-му, ані у 2005-му, ані у 2014-му.
Тому зараз маємо знов пояснювати їм зміст тієї Декларації про державний суверенітет від 1990 року
🇺🇦