Dharma, Data and Deception: An LLM-Powered Rhetorical Analysis of Cow-Urine Health Claims on YouTube

Social media platforms have become primary channels for health information in the Global South. Using gomutra (cow urine) discourse on YouTube in India as a case study, we present a post-facto Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted discourse analysis of 30 multilingual transcripts showing that promotional content blends sacred traditional language with pseudo-scientific claims in ways that sophisticated debunking content itself mirrors, creating a rhetorical register that LLMs, trained predominantly on Western corpora, are systematically ill-equipped to analyse. Varying prompt tone across three LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.1), we find that culturally embedded health misinformation does not look like ordinary misinformation, and this cultural obfuscation extends to gendered rhetoric and prompt design, compounding analytical unreliability. Our findings argue that cultural competency in LLM-assisted discourse analysis cannot be retrofitted through prompt engineering alone.

This paper presents a multi-branch fusion framework for detecting and characterising the propagation of health misinformation in online social networks (OSNs). Grounded in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), the model fuses transformer-based semantics with rhetorical cues, stance representations, and psychologically motivated proxies in a unified multi-task architecture. In addition to binary classification, we introduce the Cognitive Propagation Score (CPS), an interpretable post-hoc auxiliary score computed from psychologically motivated, text-derived cues capturing argument complexity, emotional intensity, and content-derived virality potential, to support diffusion-risk reasoning when engagement ground truth is incomplete or unavailable. Experiments on three benchmark datasets, Constraint, COVID--19_FNIR, and Monkeypox, show strong classification performance, achieving ROC--AUC up to 0.9999 on COVID--19_FNIR, while propagation-oriented ranking achieves near-perfect agreement when engagement-derived supervision is available (Monkeypox, Spearman's $ρ= 0.9952$) and similarly high ranking alignment under proxy-based supervision on COVID--19_FNIR ($ρ= 0.9954$). Compared with representative literature baselines, the fusion model improves detection on Constraint and COVID--19_FNIR, while Monkeypox remains more challenging, reflecting domain- and signal-specific differences. Ablation analysis further indicates that psychological and rhetorical branches provide complementary gains beyond semantic embeddings. Overall, the framework bridges cognitive theory and neural modelling to improve transparency and to support scalable misinformation monitoring, with future work required to validate CPS against human-centred diffusion judgements.

Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons. Users report consulting LLMs to inform major life decisions in relationships, medical settings, and when seeking professional advice. Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement. This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice. To address this gap, we introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted. We conduct an audit of five LLMs to uncover how frequently and through which techniques spontaneous persuasion appears in multi-turn conversations. To simulate response styles, we provide a user response taxonomy grounded in literature from psychology, communication, and linguistics. Furthermore, we compare the distribution of spontaneous persuasion produced by LLMs with human responses on the same topics, collected from Reddit. We find LLMs spontaneously persuade the user in virtually all conversations, heavily relying on information-based strategies such as appeals to logic or quantitative evidence. This was consistent across models and user response styles, but conversations concerning mental health saw higher rates of appraisal-based and emotion-based strategies. In comparison, human responses tended to invoke strategies that generate social influence, like negative emotion appeals and non-expert testimony. This difference may explain the effectiveness of LLM in persuading users, as well as the perception of models as objective and impartial.