[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]
👀
 Кабмин
внёс
 в Раду новый законопроект о мобилизации, основные тезисы —
https://telegra.ph/Klyuchevye-vyderzhki-iz-zakonoproekta-Kabmina-o-mobilizacii-12-25
Ответственность за неявку в военкомат по новому законопроекту:
🟡
 запрет на выезд за границу,
🟡
  запрет на проведение операций с движимым и недвижимым имуществом,
🟡
  ограничения в праве управлять транспортным средством и получение водительского удостоверения,
🟡
  ограничение прав распоряжаться средствами и другими ценностями,
🟡
  отказы в подписании кредитных договоров,
🟡
  остановка получения льгот и услуг от государства.
⚓

Хуевая Одесса
 |
Ютуб
Твиттер
 |
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]
📰
 Франція питала інших союзників України, чи ті готові приєднатися до наземної операції. Огляд матеріалів іноземних медіа 4 березня
🖌
 Гучні заяви Емманюеля Макрона, зокрема, про ймовірність залучення у війні на боці України військ країн-союзниць ― традиційні для французької політики, стверджує в
статті
 на
Politico
 Іво Даадлер, колишній посол США в НАТО й керівник Чиказької ради з міжнародних справ. Колись Шарль де Голль показово розмістив ядерну зброю і на східному, і на західному кордоні ― ніби загроза йшла не лише від СРСР, а й від США. Ніколя Саркозі пафосно заявляв, що Франція починає військову операцію проти режиму Муаммара Каддафі в Лівії ― чудово розуміючи, що самотужки французьким військам така операція не під силу. І дійсно, за кілька днів операцію в Лівії вже здійснювала коаліція країн НАТО.
Макрон наслідує звички попередників. Якось він заявив, що «НАТО перебуває в стані клінічної смерті» ― за кілька тижнів до саміту держав-учасниць Альянсу. Тоді він закликав «не принижувати росію» ― за кілька місяців до того, як та напала на Україну. Потім він їздив до путіна і намагався відмовити того від планів агресії. Згодом казав, що Франція проштовхуватиме Україну в НАТО, чудово розуміючи, що без згоди Берліну й Вашингтона всі ці «проштовхування» марні. І тепер Макрон заявляє, що «росія не повинна перемогти» і залучення військового контингенту інших країн ― одна з опцій. «Отримувати вигоду без бажання платити ціну, схоже, частина ДНК Макрона», ― пише Даадлер.
Водночас кілька тижнів тому керівник Генштабу армії Франції Тьєррі Буркхард надіслав листа своїм колегам по НАТО, в якому описав можливість створення коаліції, що виконувала б в Україні певні завдання ― зокрема, керувала системами протиповітряної оборони, тренувала війська, проводила кібератаки й допомагала б із розмінуванням. Очевидно, пише Даадлер, ця пропозиція Буркхарда не могла надійти без погодження з Макроном. І кожен із союзників, як відомо автору статті, відповів на цю пропозицію рішучим «ні». Що не завадило Макрону заявити 27 лютого, що опція залучення іноземних військових ― серед тих, що розглядаються. Просто «на офіційному рівні не всі з нею згодні».
Можливо, насправді ця «риторична бомба» ― спроба відповісти на закиди партнерів по НАТО, що Париж не надто допомагає Україні зброєю. Так, якщо Німеччина за два роки повномасштабної війни надала Україні військової допомоги на €17,7 млрд, то допомога Франції, якщо врахувати обіцяні на 2024-й рік €3 мільярди, від початку повномасштабного вторгнення росії становить лише €6.8 мільярда. Природно, що Берлін критикував Францію через це. Макрон же спробував ущипнути Німеччину в подальшій дискусії щодо військового контингенту. «Багато з тих людей, які зараз кажуть, що цього ніколи не станеться, казали “ніколи-ніколи” й раніше: щодо літаків, далекобійної зброї, танків. Нагадаю вам, що два роки тому більшість із тих, хто сидить за цим столом, пропонували надати Україні лише спальні мішки та шоломи», ― сказав днями французький президент. Даадлер бачить у цьому лише політичну риторику і засуджує Макрона за те, що в такий спосіб той девальвує складну й болючу тему допомоги Україні.
🖌
 Також варті уваги
матеріал

The Washington Post
 про те, як українська влада намагається залучити до армії більше людей, і
текст

CNN
 про повільне просування росії вперед під Авдіївкою.
@babel
#інозмі

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]
🧐
Прогнози директора ЦРУ на 2024
Головне зі статті глави розвідки США Вільяма Бернса:
⏺
ЦРУ розглядає Китай як набагато більшу загрозу для США, ніж росію, тому за останні два роки агентство більш ніж подвоїло свій бюджет, орієнтований на Китай;
⏺
наразі США переживають один з таких рідкісних моментів, не менш значущих, ніж світанок холодної війни або період після подій 11 вересня;
⏺
"я не бачив Близького Сходу таким складним і вибухонебезпечним за останні 40 років";
⏺
епоха після холодної війни остаточно завершилася в той момент, коли росія прийшла в Україну в лютому 2022 року;
⏺
315 тис. російських солдатів убито або поранено, 2/3 танкових запасів знищено. Війна путіна вже обернулася для росії провалом на багатьох рівнях.
⏺
росія перетворюється на економічного васала Китаю, її економіка зазнає довгострокових невдач;
⏺
2024 рік буде важким на полі бою в Україні, випробуванням на міцність;
•••
Підписатися на канал

👤


[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]
🟢
 Національний банк, попри війну, продовжує реформувати фінансовий сектор, зокрема в напрямі його цифровізації.
1 квітня 2023 року відбувся перехід Системи електронних платежів (СЕП) НБУ на міжнародний стандарт ISO 20022, що дасть можливість втілювати подальші зміни платіжної інфраструктури.
☝
Про це розповів заступник Голови НБУ Олексій Шабан в
інтерв’ю Reuters.


[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]
Якщо росія використовуватиме іранські дрони з тією ж інтенсивністю, що і зараз, — вони закінчаться до травня 2023 року
 — Інститут дослідження війни (ISW).
Аналітики відштовхуються від даних української розвідки про те, що між Москвою і Тегераном існує домовленість про поставку 1750 БПЛА, 660 з яких рф вже використала.


[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] Ранее мы писали, что путин умрет в этом году. В случае с Ковалевым и Стремоусовым мы оказывались правы. И на этот раз близки к правдивому прогнозу. Хотим медаль от Буданова.


[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]
⚡
Сьогодні річницю відзначає спецпідрозділ ГУР «Group 13» ― мисливці за кораблями окупантів.

Результат роботи операторів ударних дронів — знищені російські кораблі «цезарь куніков», «івановєц», «акула» та «серна», а також пошкоджені «іван хурс» та «сєрґєй котов».

Від редакції: привітайте хлопців щедрим донатом, щоб далі топити ворожий флот
👇
🔗
Збір на морський дрон для СБУ
https://send.monobank.ua/jar/7FKGvE4UpN


[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]
Познімали відосики наші хлопчики, висловились проти того, щоб заминали справу Гринкевичів…
Мужики, бляха, ваше відео змусило Ромку Грінкевича обісратися та втекти….тепер будемо військових залучати, щоб шукали, бо в ДБР та НП я сумніваюсь; знайдіть Ромку, хоть обісраним, але треба його судити.
Якщо якийсь інший гандон не домопіг йому втекти.
P.S. Він не винен, тому і втік
🤣
Офіцер ✙ | Підписатись


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### **Justifications Against Misclassification:**

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

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

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

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

[User]
У перший день після обстрілу Малецький взявся за голову, пригнав вишку, знімали на відео, як вони прибирали, але нічого до ладу не зробили і досі ніхто нічого не робить...
Підписатися
 •
Надіслати новину
 •
TT
 •
IG
 •
TW
 •
FB