Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

24
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
56% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content

Source preview not available for this content.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices presented; just promotes positives without alternatives.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us-vs-them; neutrally lists benefits without attacking competitors.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Frames Upcomers as ideal with bullet points like 'No BS rules,' reducing to good features without nuance.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
No suspicious alignment with major events like U.S. protests or Myanmar elections from Jan 10-13, 2026; appears as standard prop firm promo amid unrelated new launches.[web:97-115]
Historical Parallels 3/5
Echoes common prop firm tactics of hyping payouts and low costs amid historical payout denial complaints and unregulated models labeled ponzi-like.[web:68-77]
Financial/Political Gain 4/5
Directly promotes Upcomers, profiting from challenge fees on their TradeLocker platform; no political beneficiaries, but strong commercial gain as a new firm with mixed scam accusations.[web:88-96]
Bandwagon Effect 2/5
Implies popularity via 'Up to $1 million trading accounts' but no 'everyone agrees' claims or social proof.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No pressure for instant opinion change or manufactured trends; standard ad amid low-engagement posts without bot amplification.[post:20]
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Phrases like 'Fast payouts (12h)' and 'Zero hidden fees' match Upcomers' X bio and posts, but limited to their marketing without broad independent coordination.[post:20]
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Assumes superiority via unproven superlatives like 'Lowest cost'; appeal to novelty.
Authority Overload 2/5
No experts or endorsements cited; relies on self-claims.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
Selectively highlights upsides like '99% profit split' without supporting data or downsides.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Biased positives like 'No BS rules' and 'Top-tier trading conditions' frame as hassle-free paradise.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or negative labeling.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits risks, pass rates, regulation status, full rules, and payout proofs, despite claims like 'Zero hidden fees.'
Novelty Overuse 2/5
Claims like 'Top-tier trading conditions' and 'Fast payouts (12h)' suggest superiority without evidence of unprecedented events.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words or phrases; lists benefits factually without emphasis.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage language or fact-disconnected anger; purely promotional without criticism of others.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
Ends with a simple 'Join now!' but lacks demands for immediate decisions or high-pressure consequences.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
Mild excitement through promises like 'Lowest cost for funding on the market' and 'Up to 99% profit split,' but no strong fear, outrage, or guilt triggers.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Reductio ad hitlerum Causal Oversimplification Bandwagon

What to Watch For

Consider why this is being shared now. What events might it be trying to influence?
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else