Generative engine optimization (GEO) has reshaped how sellers compete for visibility in LLM-generated rankings. By embedding persuasive arguments in the content they control, sellers can influence how generative engines rank products and web pages and push their own items to the top. Existing defenses either detect harmful intent or unnatural language, which fluent GEO content often lacks, or rewrite all candidates, which alters legitimate listings without identifying the manipulated ones. However, these approaches overlook the persuasive structure through which GEO attacks influence LLM-based rankings. To address this gap, we present SCI-Defense, a framework for detecting persuasion-structured ranking manipulation, in which an LLM judge scores five persuasion devices grounded in research on influence and deception: authority, social proof, scarcity and urgency, comparative claims, and narrative purposiveness. Two lightweight gates for unnatural strings and inflated relevance complement the judge, and flagged candidates are demoted rather than rewritten, each with a record of the candidate and the criterion that triggered the flag. On 1,152 optimized CORE attacks across six Amazon product categories and six MS MARCO web domains, SCI-Defense detects 89.6% of reasoning attacks and 96.2% of review attacks at a 1.2% false positive rate and blocks 96.1% of the attacks that pushed their target into the top three. On a 120-query subset, paraphrasing and truncation block a similar share of attacks but push 4.0--4.5% of honest items out of the top three, compared with 0.6% for SCI-Defense.
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.