Much of the manipulation in influencer content is not false but disproportionate, framing accurate facts as historic, urgent, or catastrophic. Existing approaches either verify factual claims or detect clickbait and propaganda in single-platform, single-language text; however, they overlook where such framing originates, because they treat a post and the replies beneath it as one unit. To address this gap, we measure rhetorical distortion with one instrument applied identically across six platforms and two languages, classifying creator posts and their replies separately. Our three-tier pipeline detects five literature-grounded dimensions (Significance Inflation, Anxiety Manufacturing, Novelty Claims, Loaded Language, and Temporal Distortion): bilingual lexical rules propose candidates, negative filters cancel known false positives, and an LLM verifies or relabels the candidates. This design keeps labels transparent and comparable across platforms, calls the LLM on only 14% of posts, and supports validation against human annotators and a second model. On 13,060 posts from 330 accounts on RSS/newsletters, YouTube, Bluesky, Reddit, Weibo, and X/Twitter, platform is far more strongly associated with account-level distortion than content category (partial $η^2=0.49$ vs. $0.09$), and X/Twitter scores highest (DI 7.74 vs. 0.78 for RSS). On X/Twitter, the top-5 replies under a post carry 3.5x the distortion of the tweet they answer (1.5x at equal length), while creator tweets alone are indistinguishable from YouTube and Bluesky; two human annotators and GPT-4o confirm this gap. Measured distortion on threaded platforms thus lives largely in the audience layer, which calls for measuring creator and reply text separately.

翻译：暂无翻译