went through every answer from last night's hinson/turek debate for manipulation techniques, and checked their claims

i run a small site that reads political language for manipulation techniques (loaded language, name calling, that kind of thing). it doesn't say who's right, it just flags the wording. ran last night's iowa pbs debate through it, every answer, and checked who was talking by hand against the video

hinson: 10 of 30 answers flagged, mostly loaded language and name calling

turek: 4 of 22, mostly loaded language and exaggeration

also looked up 114 of their factual claims against fact checkers, congress.gov, wire stories etc. honestly most couldn't be settled by any source. the ones that could were mostly true but missing something. hinson's "zero crossings at the southern border" is dhs's number for releases, not crossings. turek's "$20 billion to argentina" was a currency swap line, not a grant

every answer links to that spot in the video so you can check it yourself. link in the comments. doing the oct 13 one too. if something's flagged wrong tell me, i read everything

reddit.com
u/jayubba — 7 days ago
▲ 23 r/AlaskaPolitics+1 crossposts

i ran every online ad in the alaska senate race through a model that flags manipulation techniques

i've been collecting every facebook/instagram and youtube ad in the alaska senate race and running the text through a model that flags manipulation techniques (loaded language, name calling, appeal to fear, that kind of thing). it doesn't say whether an ad is true, just how it's worded.

142 ads so far, 93 of them (65%) use at least one. that's the highest of the 13 senate races i'm tracking.

share of the 142 ads with each technique:

- loaded language: 46% (66 ads)

- appeal to prejudice: 42% (59)

- name calling: 28% (40)

- false urgency: 27% (38)

- glittering generalities: 24% (34)

- black-and-white fallacy: 22% (31)

- card stacking: 20% (28)

- conspiracy appeal: 13% (19)

the words that keep showing up in the flagged phrases: "liberal" (20 ads, e.g. "lower 48 liberals") and "sold" (10 ads, e.g. "sold Alaskans out").

biggest outside spender per fec filings: SLF PAC, $8.2M opposing Peltola.

every ad is on one page with what got flagged and who paid for it: https://semblen.com/races/ak-senate?ref=reddit

online ads only, no tv. the model gets things wrong sometimes, so each ad shows the exact words it flagged.

u/jayubba — 12 days ago
▲ 45 r/OSINT

tracing what a federal agency spends on ads using only public data (dhs as the example)

with the cbp "pro-trump ads" story this week i wanted to see how much of this you can reconstruct from public records alone. turns out a lot, but no single source joins up per ad. here's the method in case its useful:

  1. contracts: usaspending.gov api (free, no key). search awards by awarding agency + the advertising naics codes (541810-541890), then separately by recipient name for firms named in reporting, because the big one files under a different category. dhs obligated $142.8M to safe america media across 3 awards in 2025 for the border ads. the new one is award 70B06C26F00001137: cbp, $20M "NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN", LMD Agency, dated sept 20, the day after the money was reportedly moved. nothing in the record says which ads it paid for.

  2. google/youtube: google publishes its political ads data as a public bigquery dataset (bigquery-public-data.google_political_ads). advertiser_stats shows dhs is the only federal agency in it: 85 video ads, about $5.29M, march 2025 to feb 2026. creative_stats gives spend and impressions ranges per ad. catch: no video ids, just a link to the transparency center page, which won't show the video once the ad stops running.

  3. facebook/instagram: meta ad library api, search by page id not keyword (keyword search matches ad text, which is useless for finding an advertiser). dhs's main page: 56 ads, $3.1-3.8M, all in spanish, 31 captioned "un mensaje del presidente trump". the api gives you the caption only, not the video audio. use the languages field, not a language detector, short spanish text fools most of them.

  4. youtube channel: no spend data at all, but view counts relative to the channel's own median are a decent tell of paid promotion. dhs's "spanish warning" 30 sec spot (noem, opens "thank you president donald j trump") has 51.5M views on a channel where videos typically get about 2,600. that's a signal, not proof.

what you can't get: tv, streaming, radio. no public per-ad record, and that's probably where most of the money goes.

i put all of it together on one page with every figure linked to its source: semblen.com/government/ads (it's my site, fwiw). happy to share the queries if anyone wants to do this for another agency.

reddit.com
u/jayubba — 15 days ago
▲ 18 r/mediastudies+1 crossposts

I ran every Maine Senate ad through a manipulation-technique checker and pulled who's paying for them from FEC filings

I built a site called Semblen that flags manipulation techniques in political ads sentence by sentence (loaded language, appeals to fear, name calling, that kind of thing). I ran every Maine Senate ad I could find on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube since July through it.

- 79 of the 238 ads (33%) use at least one technique. That's the lowest rate of the 14 Senate races I'm tracking. Ohio is next at 41%, Alaska is highest at 67%.

- Loaded language, glittering generalities and appeals to prejudice are the most common.

- The YouTube ads are much rougher than the Facebook and Instagram ones: 62% of them use a technique, against 30%.

The money, from FEC filings:

- The biggest outside spender is SLF PAC, with $13.2M against Jackson.

- Pine Tree Results PAC has spent $9.3M against Jackson, after $10.7M against Platner before he withdrew.

- On the other side, WinSenate has spent $4.3M against Collins and $3.6M for Jackson.

- Collins has raised $16.2M this cycle. Jackson's campaign hasn't filed a fundraising report yet; the first is due October 15.

- AIPAC's PAC has forwarded $2.6M in earmarked donations to Collins, from 1,480 contributions.

Every ad is on the page, with the flagged sentences and why each one was flagged: https://semblen.com/races/me-senate?ref=reddit

The model gets it wrong sometimes, mostly on strong but fair language, which is why every flag shows the sentence and the reason. If I missed an ad or got something wrong, tell me and I'll fix it.

u/jayubba — 14 days ago