Channel
@brandmauer_report
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
595subscribers
-130 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1004241844139 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @brandmauer_report |
| Created | Between 1 May 2026 and 31 July 2026— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 13 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 13 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/brandmauer_report |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Aug 2026, 14:08 | 595 | -106 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 21:35 | 701 | -24 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 18:30 | 725 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 18:19 | 725 | first reading |
20 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 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
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. It is computed over the 11 of 20 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 6 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (31 July 2026 – 6 August 2026) |
| Views total | 2,532 |
| Reactions total | 14 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 6 Aug 2026, 18:30 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.
14 reactions across 9 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 78.6% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 11 | 78.6% | |
| 💩 | 1 | 7.14% | |
| 🔥 | 1 | 7.14% | |
| 🤔 | 1 | 7.14% |
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 11 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 14reactions 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 31 July 2026 to 6 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.
Pakistan's Crackdown on Speech Draws International Alarm Censorship blocking · 04.08.2026 Pakistan continues assembling a full toolkit for stifling free speech, and this time the international human rights community's response came swiftly. ARTICLE 19, together with Amnesty International, HRCP, Digital Rights Foundation, and a dozen other organizations, sent a letter to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and two minister…
🤔1
Data Sovereignty Isn't the Same as Resilience Surveillance control · 05.08.2026 Southeast Asia is racing to build data centers, and along with them — data sovereignty laws. The logic is simple: sensitive information should physically stay within the country. It sounds like concern for security and citizen protection, and in theory, it is. But the industry is already hinting that the conversation needs to move beyon…
💩1
Zambia's 2026 vote: a test for keeping the internet on Shutdowns · 05.08.2026 Zambia is preparing for elections on August 13, 2026, and more than 370 organizations from 106 countries have decided to remind President Hakainde Hichilema of a simple thing: it's better not to shut down the internet during voting. Yes, this has to be spelled out in a separate letter — because, unfortunately, the practice is not uncommon.…
China Tightens Exit Rules Citing Tech Security Risks Surveillance control · 05.08.2026 China has tightened its exit rules, citing risks to technological security. The wording is as vague as it gets, but the gist is simple: citizens' departures can now be restricted under the pretext of protecting certain technological secrets. What exactly counts as a security threat remains an open question — and that's no acciden…
Roskomnadzor Launches Massive VPN Crackdown Censorship blocking · 06.08.2026 Roskomnadzor appears to have carried out one of the largest crackdowns on VPN services in the history of Russian internet blocking. On August 4, one popular VPN service reported a new attack on circumvention tools that had already been underway for several days. The service didn't disclose details, but the problem turned out to be widespre…
Data Consolidation: When Convenience Becomes Surveillance Surveillance control · 04.08.2026 The Center for Democracy and Technology has released a report with a wonderfully simple title — "What Is a Database?" It sounds like a first-year computer science question, but it's not: this is an examination of how the U.S. federal government is stitching together data long scattered across states and municipalities into un…
AI Access Gap: Infrastructure, Skills, and a Cautionary Tale 04.08.2026 AI for everyone — that's what the marketing says. In practice, it's business as usual: the pie gets divided wherever there's already infrastructure, skills, and institutions in place, while everyone else gets crumbs and an instruction to "adapt." Here are the dry numbers. The US holds more than 5,000 data centers — 10 times more than any other …
DDoS attacks as a data-driven censorship tool Censorship blocking · 04.08.2026 Turns out DDoSing independent media isn't just script-kiddie mischief — it's a fully formed censorship instrument. With actual scientific methodology, no less. Here are the facts. This year, at least seven exiled Belarusian media outlets were hit by DDoS attacks, and staff link them directly to coverage of political topics. In Serbia, a …
EU extends chat control scanning regime to 2028 Surveillance control · 04.08.2026 The EU has extended the temporary "chat control" regime until April 2028. The vote went off without drama: 25 countries in favor, one against, one abstained — via written procedure, with no extra noise, in the spirit of "we're just extending what's already working anyway." The essence of the regime: platforms get the right to voluntar…
👍1
Italy quietly blocks abortion info sites online Censorship blocking · 04.08.2026 In Italy, legal abortion exists only to the extent that doctors are willing to perform it — and that, it turns out, is a problem: 67% of the country's gynecologists refuse the procedure on "moral grounds," and some hospitals report a 100% refusal rate. On top of that, there's a mandatory week-long waiting period, which easily pushes a p…
Yarovaya Law at Ten: Failure That Reshaped FSB Power Surveillance control · 03.08.2026 The "Yarovaya Law" turns ten. In all this time, it never learned to store all of Russians' internet traffic — but it did manage to reshape the balance of power within the FSB. In 2022, the number of fake bomb threat reports grew almost tenfold, exceeding 20,000. Courts were evacuated several times a day, and the FSB's Second Serv…
👍1
Cockroaches Outmaneuver Censors in India Censorship blocking · 03.08.2026 Cockroaches vs. the state — and the cockroaches are winning. Indian regulators went for the old playbook to shut down the Cockroach Janta Party: Section 69A of the IT Act, blocking the domain cockroachjantaparty.org, notices against the @CockroachParty account on X. Classic move — chop off the head, and the movement dies. It didn't. The part…
👍2
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @brandmauer_report. 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 — 1,196,544 of 1,340,412entries 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.
Named by 2 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.
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 13 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Brandmauer Report” (@brandmauer_report), 595 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/brandmauer_report.
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.