Religion — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 10 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 91% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
Growth
45 measurements spanning 79 days, net -508. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 21,466–22,141 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 45
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
24 Oct 2026, 07:08
21,555
+3
23 Oct 2026, 07:25
21,552
+4
22 Oct 2026, 08:16
21,548
+4
21 Oct 2026, 04:50
21,544
-1
20 Oct 2026, 05:57
21,545
-14
19 Oct 2026, 07:28
21,559
+3
18 Oct 2026, 06:59
21,556
+1
17 Oct 2026, 04:19
21,555
-2
16 Oct 2026, 04:20
21,557
+4
15 Oct 2026, 07:01
21,553
+1
12 Oct 2026, 18:21
21,552
-14
8 Oct 2026, 03:15
21,566
-10
3 Oct 2026, 16:55
21,576
-41
24 Sept 2026, 21:18
21,617
-49
18 Sept 2026, 16:40
21,666
-9
16 Sept 2026, 11:38
21,675
-10
14 Sept 2026, 18:00
21,685
-33
13 Sept 2026, 06:58
21,718
-36
11 Sept 2026, 09:01
21,754
-24
8 Sept 2026, 16:21
21,778
first reading
Engagement
60 posts held, back to 11 March 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 68 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
12.3%
avg views ÷ 21,555 subscribers
Avg views / post
2,660
15 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.456%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
15
of 60 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 October 2026
Posts held
60 (11 March 2025 – 12 October 2026)
Views total
39,876
Reactions total
182
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
12 Oct 2026, 11:03 UTC
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Reaction mix
204 reactions across 24 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 63.7% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
130
63.7%
👍
53
26.0%
👎
18
8.82%
👌
3
1.47%
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 24 of the 60 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 204 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 60 most recent posts we hold, published 11 March 2025 to 12 October 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
3
across the posts below
Posts paid on
3
of 60 we hold a reading for · 5%
Most on one post
1
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @Sedanet. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 60 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 11 March 2025 to 12 October 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
پس از تشخیص ظلم: وظیفهٔ ما کجا تمام میشود؟
ظالم بودن دیگری، بهتنهایی، چه تکلیفی بر ایران میگذارد؟
#رحمن_قهرمانپور در یک تمثیل ساده میپرسد:
فردی کنار خیابان تصادف کرده است. شما باید چه کنید؟ تماس با اورژانس؟ همراهی تا بیمارستان؟ پیگیری زندگی او پس از ترخیص؟
وظیفهٔ اخلاقی ما دقیقاً کجا تمام میشود؟
اما این پرسش در سیاست دشوارتر است؛ چون دولتها وقتی هزینهٔ یک منازعه را میپردازند، این هزینه فقط بر دوش تصمیمگیرن…
🔆 پیشرفت شتابناکِ هوش مصنوعی و آیندهی پسا-انسانیِ بسیار نزدیک ما؛ گُمانههایی تا سال ۲۰۳۶
✍️ #بعثت_علمی
ما در جهانی زندگی میکنیم که نه فقط فناوری، بلکه تجربهی ما از زمان نیز تغییر کرده است. شتاب زندگی مدرن، شبکههای اجتماعی و منطق سرمایه باعث شدهاند احساس کنیم همیشه از زمان عقب ماندهایم؛ گویی فرصت زیستن، پیش از آنکه تجربهاش کنیم، از دست میرود.
این جستار میکوشد از منظر فلسفه، جامعهشناسی و تخیل آیندهنگرانه …
🔆 فرهنگ در روزگار رنج؛ شبهای بخارا و بازتولید منزلت فرهنگی
✍️ متین کاخساز
فرهنگ در هر جامعهای فقط مجموعهای از آثار، اندیشهها و چهرهها نیست؛ بلکه میدانی است که در آن اعتبار، توجه و منزلت نیز توزیع میشود. اما این پرسش مهم مطرح است که چه کسانی و چگونه در مرکز توجه فرهنگی قرار میگیرند؟ آیا نهادهای فرهنگی صرفاً بازتابدهندهی اعتبار موجود هستند، یا خود نیز در ساختن و تثبیت این اعتبار نقش دارند؟
این جستار با تکیه…
🔆 وقتی قصهها دیگر کافی نیستند؛ چگونه باید زیست؟
✍️ پویان بردیامنش
ما انسانها معمولاً زندگی خود را بر پایهی پاسخهایی پیش میبریم که از پیش در اختیارمان قرار گرفتهاند؛ باورهای دینی، آرمانهای اخلاقی و سیاسی، میل به موفقیت، لذت، بقا یا روایتهایی که برای خودمان از معنای زندگی ساختهایم. اما چه اتفاقی میافتد وقتی این قصهها دیگر توان پاسخدادن به پرسشهای بنیادین ما را ندارند؟ وقتی نه فقط پاسخها، بلکه خودِ پرسش «…
🔆 کتاب | امام و قائممقام: عقل دولت، ضامن اخلاق دولت
#محمدامیر_قدوسی در کتاب امام و قائممقام به سراغ یکی از مهمترین پرسشهای اندیشه سیاسی معاصر ایران میرود: چه کسی حق حکومت کردن دارد و حکومت مشروع چگونه باید حکومت کند؟
این کتاب، برخلاف آنچه ممکن است از عنوانش به ذهن برسد، یک روایت تاریخی از رابطه امام خمینی و آیتالله حسینعلی منتظری یا شرح ماجرای قائممقامی و عزل نیست. اثر در حوزه حقوق عمومی، فقه سیاسی، فلسفه اخل…
🔆 از «ابتذال شر» تا ابتذال مفهوم در خوانش سروش دباغ از آرنت و هایدگر
✍️ حمیدرضا سعادت نیاکی
حمیدرضا سعادت نیاکی در این جستار مدعایی مشخص درباره خوانش سروش دباغ از آرنت و هایدگر مطرح میکند: مسئله صرفاً چند خطای پراکنده در نقل یا تفسیر این فیلسوفان نیست؛ در این خوانش، الگویی تکرارشونده در نحوۀ مواجهه با مفاهیم فلسفی دیده میشود.
نویسنده این الگو را «ابتذال مفهوم» مینامد: مفهوم از مسئله و دستگاهی که در آن پدید آمده …
🔆 «هیچکس اهمیت نمیدهد»؛ جملهای که هم میتواند ویران کند و هم آزاد
شاید این چند سطرِ منسوب به نیما یوشیج را شنیده باشید:
«چایت را بنوش
نگران فردایت نباش
از گندمزار من و تو
مشتی کاه میماند برای بادها»
میتوان این سطرها را دعوتی به سبکتر گرفتن بعضی نگرانیها خواند. وقتی گرفتار فکرِ یک اشتباه کوچک یا قضاوت دیگران شدهایم، یادآوری گذرا بودن بسیاری از دغدغهها میتواند از سنگینیشان کم کند.
گاهی همین معنا را در جمله…
🔆 آیا عدالتخواهی در سرشت ماست، یا آن را میآموزیم؟
فرض کنید دارایی شما از یک سکه به دوازده سکه رسیده، اما دارایی دیگری از یک سکه به شصت سکه. شما بسیار بیشتر از گذشته دارید؛ بااینحال ممکن است بهجای رضایت، از فاصلهای که میان شما افتاده ناراحت شوید. چرا؟
#آذرخش_مکری در دو گفتار دربارهٔ پیچیدگیهای روانی برابری و انصاف سراغ همین پرسش میرود: حساسیت ما به نابرابری چقدر ریشه در تکامل دارد و چقدر آموختهٔ فرهنگ، آموزش،…
🔆 اگر احساس «بهدردنخور بودن» فقط یک احساس شخصی نباشد چه؟
✍️ #مارک_فیشر
مارک فیشر از تجربهای بسیار شخصی آغاز میکند: سالها افسردگی، بیکاری، بستریشدن و احساسی مداوم که به او میگفت «تو به هیچ دردی نمیخوری.»
اما پرسش اصلی او از همینجا آغاز میشود:
این صدای تحقیرگر که میگوید «مشکل از خود توست»، واقعاً چقدر «صدای درون» ماست؟
فیشر در مقالهٔ کوتاه و تکاندهندهٔ «بهدردنخور» (Good for Nothing) میکوشد افسردگی را از…
🔆 آیا درآمد بیشتر یعنی سهم ارزشمندتر در جامعه؟
✍️ #رابرت_ساگدن
#مایکل_سندل در استبداد شایستگی از جامعهای انتقاد میکند که موفقیت را نشانهٔ شایستگی میگیرد و شکست را به پای خود فرد مینویسد. در برابر این منطق، او از «کرامت کار» سخن میگوید: ارزش کار انسان را نباید صرفاً با درآمد و قیمت بازار سنجید؛ کار باید به انسان احساس مشارکت در خیر مشترک و «مورد نیاز بودن» بدهد.
اما رابرت ساگدن، اقتصاددان و فیلسوف بریتانیایی، پ…
🔆 اخلاق وقتی وارد استدلال فقهی میشود، تا کجا حق پیشروی دارد؟
✍️ #مهدی_ایرانمنش
#ابوالقاسم_فنائی در پروژهٔ فکری خود دربارهٔ نسبت اخلاق و فقه، پرسش را از «اخلاقیبودن نتیجهٔ یک حکم» به خودِ فرایند استنباط میبرد: آیا ملاحظات اخلاقی میتوانند در سنجش ادله و شکلگیری نتیجهٔ فقهی نقش داشته باشند؟
این مقاله در امتداد همین بحث، بر پرسشی مشخص تمرکز میکند: اگر برای یک داوری اخلاقی دلایل خوبی داشته باشیم، آن داوری در کدام…
🔆 آیا روایت تکامل و خلقت انسان میتوانند همزمان درست باشند؟
آیا نظریهٔ تکامل با روایت دینیِ آفرینش آدم و حوا ناسازگار است؟ این مناظره از جایی جذاب میشود که پاسخ هیچیک از دو طرف، «انکار تکامل» نیست. #حامد_وحدتینسب و #حسین_کامکار هر دو تکامل زیستی و تکامل انسان را میپذیرند؛ اختلاف بر سر پرسش دشوارتری است: آیا میتوان در دل تاریخ تکاملی بشر، همچنان از آفرینشی ویژه برای آدم و حوا سخن گفت؟
کامکار میکوشد با تفکیک م…
👍10👎3
Showing the 12 most recent of 60 posts we hold for @Sedanet. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Posts edited after publishing
@Sedanet edited 1 post after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.
An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.
First edit seen
28 September 2026
Most recent edit
28 September 2026
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Mentions
Named by 11 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Channels Telegram recommends alongside this one
Telegram’s own answer, not this register’s. When this register asks Telegram’s API what is similar to this channel, this is the list it returns, in the exact order Telegram returns it — never re-sorted by subscribers or by anything else this register measures. The relationship, and the order, are Telegram’s; we record them and date them, and make no claim of our own about which of these channels actually resemble this one.
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 23 September 2026. Telegram holds a list like this for a small and growing share of the register — how this is measured, and why most channel pages show nothing here.
Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
مصطفی ملکیان @mostafamalekian · 65,777 Telegram ranks this channel #7 of 99 here — alongside 98 others — read 21 August 2026
علوم اجتماعی،مسائل روز @social_science · 24,358 Telegram ranks this channel #34 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 17 September 2026
جامعهشناسی @iransociology · 37,400 Telegram ranks this channel #49 of 94 here — alongside 93 others — read 1 September 2026
اپلای فنلاند 🇫🇮 مهاجرت مازیار @Apply_Finland · 52,773 Telegram ranks this channel #51 of 69 here — alongside 68 others — read 24 August 2026
This channel appears in 4 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 24 October 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“وبسایت فرهنگی صدانت” (@Sedanet), 21,555 subscribers as measured 24 October 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Sedanet.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.