Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

6
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
73% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Sam Altman on X

We have a lot of exciting launches related to Codex coming over the next month, starting next week. We hope you will be delighted. We are going to reach the Cybersecurity High level on our preparedness framework soon. We have been getting ready for this. Cybersecurity is tricky…

Posted by Sam Altman
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices presented; discusses strategy without extremes.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us-vs-them; neutral company update without division.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good-vs-evil framing; acknowledges nuance with 'Cybersecurity is tricky…'.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic as a product update amid ongoing cybersecurity news like CISA hearings, with no correlation to distracting from major events such as winter storms or political developments in the past 72 hours.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda playbooks; searches found no links to state-sponsored disinfo campaigns matching this straightforward tech announcement.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
OpenAI benefits from promoting its Codex launches, but no evidence of political operations or paid promotion; aligns with genuine company interests without external beneficiaries.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of universal agreement; does not invoke 'everyone agrees' or social proof.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency or pressure to change views; organic X engagement shows no manufactured momentum or astroturfing.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Normal news echo of Sam Altman's tweet across sites and X, without verbatim coordination from independent outlets suggesting inauthentic behavior.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
Straightforward statements without flawed reasoning.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited; self-referential company claims only.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented at all, avoiding selective use.
Framing Techniques 2/5
Mild positive framing with 'exciting launches' and 'delighted', but mostly neutral language like 'tricky' without strong bias.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or labeling dissenters.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits specifics on launches, framework details, or exact measures, leaving readers without concrete evidence of claims like 'Cybersecurity High level'.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No 'unprecedented' or shocking claims; mentions standard progress like 'reach the Cybersecurity High level' without hype.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words; content is factual and brief without redundancy.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or evoked; cybersecurity noted as 'tricky' factually, not inflammatory.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; the post previews future launches without pressuring readers to act.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; phrases like 'exciting launches' and 'hope you will be delighted' are neutral and positive without emotional triggers.
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else