Politics & activism — 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 92% 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.
Also posting the same content
This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 1 other registered channel, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.
Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.
35 measurements spanning 43 days, net -65. 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 19,738–19,858 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 35
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
18 Sept 2026, 00:57
19,779
+6
15 Sept 2026, 17:42
19,773
-10
13 Sept 2026, 22:19
19,783
-4
12 Sept 2026, 02:36
19,787
-17
9 Sept 2026, 14:55
19,804
+38
6 Sept 2026, 10:40
19,766
+12
4 Sept 2026, 03:36
19,754
+1
2 Sept 2026, 15:34
19,753
+1
1 Sept 2026, 15:13
19,752
-7
31 Aug 2026, 17:12
19,759
-6
30 Aug 2026, 16:45
19,765
-11
29 Aug 2026, 14:14
19,776
+3
28 Aug 2026, 14:35
19,773
+3
27 Aug 2026, 14:13
19,770
-5
26 Aug 2026, 17:04
19,775
-8
25 Aug 2026, 15:42
19,783
-15
24 Aug 2026, 16:08
19,798
-6
22 Aug 2026, 21:27
19,804
+22
21 Aug 2026, 12:46
19,782
-4
20 Aug 2026, 13:12
19,786
first reading
Engagement
137 posts held, back to 31 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 57 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
23.8%
avg views ÷ 19,779 subscribers
Avg views / post
4,720
55 posts measured
Reaction rate
2.79%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
55
of 137 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 2 September 2026
Posts held
137 (31 July 2026 – 2 September 2026)
Views total
259,410
Reactions total
7,230
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
3 Sept 2026, 01:00 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.
What this channel posts
Video runtime
16m 11s
Average length
40s
Measured directly from 24 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
17,746 reactions across 132 posts, in 24 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 18.1% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
😁
3,211
18.1%
🤡
2,779
15.7%
🤣
2,113
11.9%
💊
1,403
7.91%
🤬
1,234
6.95%
❤
1,107
6.24%
👍
890
5.02%
🔥
748
4.22%
🤔
658
3.71%
💩
640
3.61%
🤯
514
2.90%
😢
470
2.65%
🌚
451
2.54%
😡
421
2.37%
🙈
213
1.20%
💯
183
1.03%
😭
154
0.868%
🍾
128
0.721%
🥰
117
0.659%
🫡
113
0.637%
4 further kinds
199
1.12%
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 136 of the 137 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 18,240 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 137 most recent posts we hold, published 31 July 2026 to 2 September 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
246
across the posts below
Posts paid on
4
of 136 we hold a reading for · 3%
Most on one post
243
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @one_big_union. 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 137 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 31 July 2026 to 2 September 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.
Вчера Палата Представителей осудила социализм. Только восемь демократов поддержали резолюции, что породило большое количество патетических восклицаний, что Демократическая партия уже стала социалистической.
Тем не менее, тайна голосования демократов кроется в тексте резолюции. Конечно, кто-то голосовал против, так как осуждаемые члены Демократических социалистов Америки идут на выборы как демократы. Но самое главное…
Через несколько часов Монетный двор сделает доступным для заказа монету в один доллар с изображением президента Трампа в честь 250-летия США.
Появление монеты связано с ожесточенным юридическим спором. С одной стороны, 31 U.S.C. запрещает помещать портрет живого лица на валюте и ценных бумагах США. Юристы Монетного двора возражают, что монеты не относятся к валюте и регулируются отдельным законом.
Однако, Circulati…
На телеканале Fox News обеспокоены падением рождаемости в США:
У нас родилось 3,6 миллионов человек за год, но проблема заключается в подростках и молодых людях. В возрасте от 15 до 19 лет уровень рождаемости снизился на 70% за последние два десятилетия. Это значит, что мы фактически говорим молодым людям, чтобы они не заводили детей, пока они не обретут стабильность в жизни, финансовую обеспеченность или на найдут …
Вице-президент Джей Ди Вэнс: Сейчас я стараюсь сосредоточиться на том, чтобы делать как можно больше Божьей работы. И если это приведет к концу времен, хорошо.
Очень интересная ситуация в Палате представителей: двое демократов спасли спикера Джонсона от провального голосования по так называемому правилу — по сути повестке работы Палаты. Четверо республиканцев проголосовало против, но двое центристских демократов — Мэри Глюссенкамп Перез и Джаред Голден — проголосовали «за» и обеспечили его принятие. Правило включает такие законопроекты, как официальное осуждение социализма …
Для понимания: представители оппозиции почти никогда не голосуют за предложенное правящей партией правило, чтобы не облегчать ей управление повесткой Палаты. Поэтому сегодняшняя ситуация практически беспрецедентна — и очень плохо говорит о способности руководства демократической фракции контролировать своих членов. Голден уже не переизбирается, но Глюссенкамп Перез идёт на новый срок. Она неоднократно шла против свои…
Палата представителей вернулась в Вашингтон на недельку-другую перед выборами.
Я вам напомню, что действующий федеральный бюджет истекает в конце этого месяца, и весь октябрь отведён на активную предвыборную кампанию. Бюджет надо принять до конца этого месяца, а то шатдаун рискует затянуться очень сильно.
Про проект бюджета речь даже не идёт, только о продлении действующего бюджета: это то, что называется continuin…
Администрация Трампа потратила четверть миллиона долларов на ремонт президентского боулинг-клуба. Компания Charles Mann Enterprises получила контракт на сумму более 260 тысяч долларов на замену освещения в боулинг-зале им. Гарри Трумэна.
Площадка для боулинга впервые открылась в Западном крыле Белого дома в 1947 году и была построена на средства жителей штата Миссури в качестве подарка на 63-летие президента Гарри Т…
Уроки экономики от Дональда Трампа:
Возьмите некоторые страны, не буду из называть, страны, которые вы считаете великими. Они платят всего 0,5%, верно? Полпроцента. Но они зарабатывает 40 миллиардов долларов на Соединенных штатах.
Если они не заработают 40 миллиардов, а нам вообще не нужны их товары, нам не нужны их товары. Так что мы прекратили торговлю с этой страной и заработали 40 миллиардов. Если так сделать е…
В свежем опросе Reuters/Ipsos всего 20% респондентов поддержали введение Дональдом Трампом 50% торговых пошлин на товары из Канады, 57% опрошенных выступают против. А недавнее переименование озера Онтарио поддерживают еще меньше: лишь 14% за и 63% против.
Похожие результаты и в недавнем опросе YouGov. Введение пошлин на канадские товары поддерживают 27%, не поддерживают - 62%. За переименование озеро Онтарио высказа…
😁64👏26❤6🙈4👍3
Showing the 12 most recent of 137 posts we hold for @one_big_union. 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
@one_big_union edited 2 posts 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
15 August 2026
Most recent edit
29 August 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 31 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. The 24 listed below are the most frequent namers; the rest are counted above but not each listed.
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.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
Dead references
1
handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
Evidenced gone
0
we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
Never seen alive
1
vacant every time we have ever looked
@one_big_union named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all. A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
@rapidresponse47 named in 3 posts, 12 August 2026 – 16 August 2026
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.
Пробковый шлем @pithhelmet · 23,207 Telegram ranks this channel #14 of 93 here — alongside 92 others — read 19 September 2026
Книжный импорт @importknig · 35,312 Telegram ranks this channel #40 of 93 here — alongside 92 others — read 2 September 2026
Samsebeskazal @samsebeskazal · 42,506 Telegram ranks this channel #42 of 92 here — alongside 91 others — read 29 August 2026
baunovhaus @baunovhaus · 36,103 Telegram ranks this channel #49 of 94 here — alongside 93 others — read 1 September 2026
Faridaily @faridaily24 · 63,127 Telegram ranks this channel #50 of 96 here — alongside 95 others — read 21 August 2026
Григорий Баженов @furydrops · 28,365 Telegram ranks this channel #51 of 81 here — alongside 80 others — read 9 September 2026
This channel appears in 6 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 18 September 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“One Big Union” (@one_big_union), 19,779 subscribers as measured 18 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/one_big_union.
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.