Recorded in 2019 as “موسسه رحمان” — the title held for this same channel (matched by Telegram id, not by handle) in the Pushshift Telegram Dataset, a third-party archive captured in 2019-2020, years before this register made its own first observation. CC BY 4.0, Baumgartner, Zannettou, Squire & Blackburn (2020), Zenodo. A third party’s dated snapshot, not a measurement this register made itself.
Growth
4 measurements spanning 7 days, net +18. 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 3,755–3,779 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
12 Aug 2026, 22:17
3,776
+7
9 Aug 2026, 20:52
3,769
+11
6 Aug 2026, 04:32
3,758
no change
5 Aug 2026, 18:38
3,758
first reading
Engagement
22 posts held, back to 27 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 4 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
29.5%
avg views ÷ 3,776 subscribers
Avg views / post
1,110
21 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.671%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
22
of 22 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 7 August 2026
Posts held
22 (27 July 2026 – 7 August 2026)
Views total
23,412
Reactions total
157
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
8 Aug 2026, 06:14 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
1m 38s
Average length
1m 38s
Measured directly from 1 video 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
148 reactions across 20 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 69.6% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
103
69.6%
👍
38
25.7%
👏
5
3.38%
👎
2
1.35%
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 21 of the 22 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 157reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 22 most recent posts we hold, published 27 July 2026 to 7 August 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.
مسئله اعتماد و گفتوگو در جامعه
🔹چرا در جامعه ما گفتگو شکل نمیگیرد؟ کلثوم بزی (دبیر نشست) معتقد است «شبح گذشته» و «عدم اعتماد» مانع اصلی درک متقابل ماست؛ توهمی که باعث میشود فکر کنیم درد ما از درد دیگری مهمتر است!
🔹اما ریشه این عدم نقدپذیری کجاست؟ لطفالله میثمی نقطه عزیمت را در نقد «قداستانگاری» میداند. او هشدار میدهد که انحصار اخلاق در دوقطبی «خیر و شر»، جامعه را فلج میکند. وقتی ما از روشنفکر یک «فرد منجی…
سقوط از برج عاج؛ روشنفکران به دنبال لایک یا حل مسئله؟
🔹آیا روشنفکران صدای اکثریت جامعه را میشنوند یا درگیر «خودشیفتگی» شدهاند؟
🔹در نشست اخیر «آسیبشناسی فضای روشنفکری»، سعید مدنی در نقد این فضا به «خودشیفتگی»، «سلبریتیزدگی» و «بیثباتی تحلیلی» اشاره کرد. به گفته او، گاهی روشنفکران بهجای شکل دادن به یک گفتگوی واقعی، بیشتر در پی «اثبات خود» هستند.
🔹مخاطبان این نشست هم دست روی نقطه حساسی گذاشتند: خشم از گسست روشن…
مشروطه؛ روایتی از ساختن و فروریختن اعتماد
🔹امیرمعین نیکزاد لاریجانی در نوشتهی «فرهنگ اعتماد در عصر مشروطه» نشان میدهد که چگونه تجربههای تاریخی میتوانند اعتماد یا بیاعتمادی را در جامعه شکل دهند.
🔹در مسیر مشروطه، گروههای مختلفی—از مردم و بازار تا روحانیون و رهبران اجتماعی—در مقاطعی توانستند بر بیاعتمادی غلبه کنند و برای هدفی مشترک کنار هم بایستند. اما این اعتماد، چون به اندازه کافی در نهادها و قواعد پایدار تثب…
روشنفکری زیر ذرهبین اخلاق دموکراتیک
🔹روز چهارشنبه، ۷ مرداد ۱۴۰۵، نشستی تحلیلی و تعاملی با موضوع کلان «دموکراسی اخلاقی در فضای روشنفکری»، با همکاری مؤسسه رحمان و انجمن اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، با حضور سعیدمدنی، پژوهشگر ارشد علوم اجتماعی و فعال مدنی، لطف الله میثمی، فعال سیاسی و زهرا قزلباش پژوهشگر فلسفه غرب از ساعت ۱۶ تا ۲۰ و در قالب دو پنل تخصصی برگزار شد.
🔹برای مطالعه مشروح گزارش نشست «دموکراسی اخلاقی در فضای روشن…
سعید مدنی: مدعیان فلسفه، بدون شناخت جامعه، کجفهمترین افراد نسبت به زمانه خود خواهند بود
📌مسعود پیوسته، خبرنگار دیدارنیوز گزارشی از یک نشست با عنوان «آسیبشناسی فضای روشنفکری» تهیه کرده که در ادامه میخوانید. سعید مدنی، پژوهشگر مسائل اجتماعی و فعال ملی ـ مذهبی در این نشست میگوید که بدون شناخت جامعه، فهم درست از زمانه ممکن نیست. به همین دلیل، برخی مدعیان تفکر و فلسفه، چون شناختی از جامعه ندارند، نسبت به مسائل روزگا…
انتشار ویدیوی کامل نشست «دموکراسی اخلاقی در فضای روشنفکری»
🔸روز چهارشنبه، ۷ مرداد ۱۴۰۵، نشستی تحلیلی و تعاملی با موضوع کلان «دموکراسی اخلاقی در فضای روشنفکری»، با همکاری مؤسسه رحمان و انجمن اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، از ساعت ۱۶ تا ۲۰ و در قالب دو پنل تخصصی برگزار شد.
🔸در این نشست، علاوه بر طرح دیدگاههای نظری، سخنرانان درباره آسیبهای فضای روشنفکری، الزامات اخلاق دموکراتیک و راهکارهای تقویت گفتوگو، مدارا و مسئولیتپذ…
🔷«سعید مدنی» در نشست مؤسسه رحمان از نسبت روشنفکران با جامعه و قدرت گفت
🔶بحران فاصله روشنفکر و جامعه
🔷سعید مدنی: اگر روشنفکری از مسائل روز جامعه خود خبر نداشته باشد، به بیراهه میرود
✍️نگین شریفی
🔹بیش از ۱۶۰ سال از شکلگیری جریان روشنفکری در ایران میگذرد، اما هنوز این پرسش پابرجاست که روشنفکر تا چه اندازه توانسته با جامعه خود همراه بماند و مسائل آن را نمایندگی کند؟
🔹 پرسشی که در سالهای اخیر و همزمان با انباشت ب…
همراهان عزیز🍃
از همراهی ارزشمندتان در نشست «دموکراسی اخلاقی در فضای روشنفکری» سپاسگزاریم.
به دلیل فشردگی و شلوغی برنامه، برخی از دوستان فرصت نکردند فرم نظرسنجی و تکمیل اطلاعات را پر کنند. اگر هنوز این فرم را تکمیل نکردید، خوشحال میشویم چند دقیقه از وقتتان را به آن اختصاص دهید.
نظرها، پیشنهادها و اطلاعات شما به ما کمک میکند برنامههای آینده را بهتر برگزار کنیم و ارتباط مؤثرتری با شما داشته باشیم.
وبسایت | اینس…
📌مشارکت، از روایتها آغاز میشود
مشارکت، فقط کنار هم قرار گرفتن نیست؛
روایتیست که از شنیدن، آموختن و ساختنِ مشترک آغاز میشود.
🔹در رویداد «داستان مشارکت؛ دیدارها و روایتها» گرد هم میآییم تا:
🔻در کارگاه «معناسازی برای سمنها در تجربه جنگ» با ارائه دکتر بابک علوی شرکت کنیم؛
🔻 در نشست هماندیشی و همافزایی سمنها و بخش خصوصی برای افزایش اثربخشی اجتماعی به گفتوگو بنشینیم؛
🔻 ایدههای نو سمنها برای عبور از بحرانها…
🎧 فایل صوتی نشست «دموکراسی اخلاقی در فضای روشنفکری»
🎙با سخنرانی #زهرا_قزلباش
🖊درباره «دگردیسی روشنفکری در زمینه اخلاق دموکراتیک»
📆 ۷ مردادماه ۱۴۰۵
📍مؤسسه رحمان
وبسایت | اینستاگرام | تلگرام
👍6❤1
Showing the 12 most recent of 22 posts we hold for @RahmanInstitute. 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.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 14,687 of 1,151,006entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
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.
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 12 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“مؤسسه رحمان” (@RahmanInstitute), 3,776 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/RahmanInstitute.
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.