Channel
@RedirectCrap
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
1,298subscribers
-190 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1003736807674 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @RedirectCrap |
| Created | Between 1 February 2026 and 30 July 2026 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 6 October 2026 |
| Measurements held | 17 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 6 October 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/RedirectCrap |
Technology — 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 18 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 99% 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.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 6 Oct 2026, 10:58 | 1,298 | -4 |
| 28 Sept 2026, 22:58 | 1,302 | -8 |
| 18 Sept 2026, 22:00 | 1,310 | -11 |
| 14 Sept 2026, 08:42 | 1,321 | -17 |
| 10 Sept 2026, 09:59 | 1,338 | -27 |
| 4 Sept 2026, 18:37 | 1,365 | -13 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 08:54 | 1,378 | -9 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 14:18 | 1,387 | -8 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 21:03 | 1,395 | -14 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 04:44 | 1,409 | -12 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 07:52 | 1,421 | -7 |
| 17 Aug 2026, 16:36 | 1,428 | -18 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 20:14 | 1,446 | -20 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 02:51 | 1,466 | -14 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 13:34 | 1,480 | -8 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 21:47 | 1,488 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 19:28 | 1,488 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 30 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 1 page of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 7 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
21 reactions across 20 posts, in 16 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 9.52% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 2 | 9.52% | |
| 👀 | 2 | 9.52% | |
| 👨💻 | 2 | 9.52% | |
| 👻 | 2 | 9.52% | |
| 🫡 | 2 | 9.52% | |
| ☃ | 1 | 4.76% | |
| ✍ | 1 | 4.76% | |
| 🍌 | 1 | 4.76% | |
| 🏆 | 1 | 4.76% | |
| 🐳 | 1 | 4.76% | |
| 👌 | 1 | 4.76% | |
| 🔥 | 1 | 4.76% | |
| 😁 | 1 | 4.76% | |
| 😈 | 1 | 4.76% | |
| 😐 | 1 | 4.76% | |
| 🤝 | 1 | 4.76% |
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 20 of the 20 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 21 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 30 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.
Let’s be real: chatbots are like the awkward cousin at a family reunion-kinda helpful but mostly just confusing. 🤖 Ever tried talking to one about your account issue, only for it to suggest ordering pizza? 🍕 Yeah, I get it, we all love a good slice, but that’s not exactly what I asked for. These little digital assistants have evolved from flat-out disasters to surprisingly passable. Sure, they make customer service …
👌1
Let’s be real: the truth about AI development often feels like a game of ethical Twister. 🤹♂️ On one hand, we’re all dazzled by the shiny new tech that can do everything except make your morning coffee. ☕️ But on the flip side? We’re cracking open a Pandora’s box filled with dilemmas that scream ‘What have we done?!’ Think about it: should we really let AI decide who gets a job, or is it just another way to cause c…
👻1
Posted without readable text
👀1
Posted without readable text
🍌1
Posted without readable text
😐1
Let’s keep it real: chatbots are the ultimate sidekicks in the customer service saga. 🤖 You thought talking to a human was frustrating? Now you can get stuck in an endless loop of "Can I help you with that?" and "I’m sorry, I didn’t quite catch that." Ever had a chatbot recommend the wrong product because it misunderstood your question? Yeah, good times! 😂 But here’s the kicker: while they might be robotically charmi…
🤝1
Let’s dive deep into the murky waters of AI development ethics. 🤖 Ever scroll through social media and wonder if there's a line that shouldn't be crossed? It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion-utterly fascinating yet terrifying. You've got tech geniuses crafting algorithms that shape our world, but who's watching the watchdog? Is it ethical to let machines decide what we see, who we talk to, or even what w…
👻1
Let’s cut the crap: ever notice how many TV shows are playing in the ‘what could go wrong with tech’ sandbox? 📺😅 From AI overlords in *Black Mirror* to the social media mayhem in *The Social Dilemma*, these shows aren’t just for binge-watching-they’re throwing some serious shade on our future. Will we really end up talking to a toaster? Or spend our lives scrolling through curated versions of reality? One thing’s cl…
😈1
Let’s be clear: diving into DIY automation projects is like teaching your dog to use the remote. Spoiler alert: it’s not going to end well! 😅 First off, stop dreaming about turning your house into Iron Man's lair. Start small-maybe automate that light switch that’s a stretch to reach. Trust me, a simple win is way better than ending up with a half-finished project gathering dust. And for the love of tech, don’t ski…
🔥1
Let’s cut through the BS: AI development feels like a game of ‘hot potato’ with our ethics. 🤔 We’re flipping algorithms like pancakes, but who’s actually minding the store? You think your life decisions are safe under a silicone thumb? Nope! Your AI buddy could give you advice on everything from loans to what to binge-watch - but it's basically a toddler with a credit card. What are we thinking letting machines tan…
👨💻1
Let’s be blunt: TV shows are like your friend who thinks they know the future. 📺 But sometimes, they actually do! From self-driving cars in *Black Mirror* to the mind-bending tech of *Westworld*, it’s like a peek into a crystal ball of tech madness. Ever think about how those insane AI plots might not be so far from reality? We're already letting algorithms influence our lives, and it’s only getting weirder! 🤖 So, w…
❤1
Let’s be real: the future of robotics isn’t just cool technology; it’s a major shake-up for job markets. 🤖💼 Ever sit and look at those robots that can now flip burgers or assemble cars faster than you can post your brunch pic? Yeah, they’re coming for jobs too! We’re not just talking about factory workers-your friendly barista, the delivery guy, even your local doc might feel the pinch. We’re all just one algorithm …
👀1
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @RedirectCrap. 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.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
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.
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 6 October 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Crap” (@RedirectCrap), 1,298 subscribers as measured 6 October 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/RedirectCrap.
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.