Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

4
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
73% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Peter Steinberger 🦞 on X

Another day, another 300 commits in. https://t.co/WASzVViT2z https://t.co/8SjU0zKxB2

Posted by Peter Steinberger 🦞
Linked Content
https://github.com/clawdbot/clawdbot/releases/tag/v2026.1.21
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No extreme options presented; neutral changelog without choices like 'do or don't'.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us vs. them; purely technical, e.g., 'Heartbeat: allow explicit session keys', no group dynamics.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good vs. evil; detailed feature list like 'Cache: add cache.ttlPrune mode' avoids binary framing.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic as Clawdbot releases frequently (e.g., daily/weekly commits per GitHub); no correlation with major Jan 19-22 news like MLK Day or weather, nor priming for events like March primaries.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda; matches routine OSS changelogs, unlike state-sponsored patterns or psyops.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No beneficiaries identified; Clawdbot is an open-source project by @steipete with no funding, company ties, or political angles in searches.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of widespread agreement; focuses on individual contributions like 'Thanks @vignesh07' without 'everyone agrees' pressure.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency or astroturfing; organic mentions without trends or coordinated pushes per X searches.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique project-specific update; no identical framing across sources, just isolated X posts from maintainers.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
No flawed reasoning; straightforward bullet points of changes without arguments.
Authority Overload 1/5
No questionable experts cited; credits contributors like '@dlauer' factually without overload.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
Selects positive highlights like 'reduce token spend' while omitting bugs or failures beyond 'bugs squashed'.
Framing Techniques 2/5
Mildly positive phrasing like 'glow-up' for integrations, but mostly neutral technical terms.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No critics mentioned or labeled; focuses on positives like 'UX refresh +clawdbot update wizard'.
Context Omission 3/5
Highlights key changes but omits full commit details or potential downsides, such as implementation caveats for 'Exec approvals + elevated ask/full modes'.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No 'unprecedented' or shocking claims; features like 'Custom assistant identity + avatars' are presented factually without hype.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words or phrases; the changelog uses straightforward terms like 'Exec approvals + elevated ask/full modes' without repetition for effect.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or evoked; content is a dry list of commits, e.g., 'CLI: add clawdbot update wizard', disconnected from any controversy.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; it simply announces changes such as 'Cache optimizations: cache-ttl pruning + defaults reduce token spend' as informative highlights.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; the content neutrally lists technical updates like 'Lobster optional plugin tool for typed workflows + approval gates' without emotional triggers.

Identified Techniques

Name Calling, Labeling Loaded Language Repetition Doubt Slogans
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else