Channel
@offguardian
On this record: Topic · Observations · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
8,527subscribers
-173 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001483517232 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @offguardian |
| Description | OffG's official Telegram channel. off-guardian.org |
| Created | 28 November 2020 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 11 November 2026 |
| Measurements held | 26 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 11 November 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/offguardian |
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 11 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 97% 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 the other topics.
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
Posts published here appear in near-verbatim form on 1 other registered channel. The matching is on the text itself, not on Telegram’s forward marker, so it finds a copy whether or not it was labelled as one.
| Posted first | Then | Overlap | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| @offguardian/3554 · this entry6 Nov 2026, 20:40 UTC | @DMPatriot17/2167606 Nov 2026, 22:01 UTC | 1.00 | 82 minutes |
| @offguardian/3555 · this entry7 Nov 2026, 16:10 UTC | @DMPatriot17/2168818 Nov 2026, 17:39 UTC | 1.00 | 25 hours |
| Channel | Matching posts | Text overlap | Typical gap | Published first |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @DMPatriot17 | 5 (5/5 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 1.00 | 89 minutes | this entry (5–0) |
Text overlap is the Jaccard coefficient over the set of distinct three-word phrases in the two bodies: 1.00 is identical wording, and the threshold for counting a pair at all is 0.70. Candidates are generated by simhash LSH (4 x 16-bit bands, exact Hamming <= 3) verified against the bodies with Jaccard over the SET of distinct 3-word shingles. Published first counts which side of each matching pair carries the earlier timestamp — in this corpus, which is the limitation directly below.
What this cannot establish
MEASURED, DOMINANT ERROR SOURCE: a post ingested before 2026-08-06 may have carried a forward header that was not recorded. A 45-pair hand-check against live t.me pages found 14 (31%) where the live page shows a forward header naming the other channel and the database has none, plus 4 more (9%) naming a third party. The text match itself was wrong 0 times out of 45. Read attribution_capture.items_in_trusted_window before treating the unattributed count as a claim.
Telegram lets a channel forward a post with a header naming the source, and we only began reliably recording that header on 2026-08-06. None of the 0 matches recorded here fall after that date, so for this entry we cannot say whether any of them carried a credit. The duplication is measured; the absence of attribution is not.
“Published first” means first in this corpus. We hold 75 comparable posts for this entry, running 18 July 2026 to 10 November 2026. A channel we have read one page deep will look younger than a neighbour we have read in full, and the order would flip with no change in the underlying facts.
The detector’s own notes on this observation, as it recorded them. Names in this_style are fields of the underlying evidence record, which the plain-English paragraphs above read out for this entry.
Recorded under the key clone_source, last confirmed 11 November 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Nov 2026, 03:20 | 8,527 | -6 |
| 7 Nov 2026, 20:54 | 8,533 | -10 |
| 4 Nov 2026, 13:36 | 8,543 | -6 |
| 1 Nov 2026, 17:31 | 8,549 | -1 |
| 30 Oct 2026, 00:56 | 8,550 | -4 |
| 26 Oct 2026, 20:46 | 8,554 | -2 |
| 23 Oct 2026, 16:55 | 8,556 | -6 |
| 20 Oct 2026, 20:48 | 8,562 | -5 |
| 18 Oct 2026, 02:40 | 8,567 | -4 |
| 15 Oct 2026, 12:16 | 8,571 | -7 |
| 12 Oct 2026, 16:00 | 8,578 | -14 |
| 5 Oct 2026, 22:02 | 8,592 | -18 |
| 28 Sept 2026, 23:18 | 8,610 | -29 |
| 15 Sept 2026, 21:59 | 8,639 | -5 |
| 12 Sept 2026, 07:58 | 8,644 | +5 |
| 7 Sept 2026, 19:22 | 8,639 | -10 |
| 2 Sept 2026, 19:27 | 8,649 | -11 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 16:26 | 8,660 | -7 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 22:46 | 8,667 | -5 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 23:23 | 8,672 | first reading |
77 posts held, back to 18 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 45 pages of 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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 10 November 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 77 (18 July 2026 – 10 November 2026) |
| Views total | 54,957 |
| Reactions total | 254 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 11 Nov 2026, 13:05 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.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 11 November 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
795 reactions across 73 posts, in 13 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 55.3% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 440 | 55.3% | |
| ❤ | 152 | 19.1% | |
| 👏 | 55 | 6.92% | |
| 🔥 | 46 | 5.79% | |
| 🤬 | 33 | 4.15% | |
| 🤮 | 22 | 2.77% | |
| 👎 | 11 | 1.38% | |
| 😁 | 9 | 1.13% | |
| 🤔 | 9 | 1.13% | |
| 😢 | 6 | 0.755% | |
| 😱 | 6 | 0.755% | |
| 🥰 | 4 | 0.503% | |
| 🤯 | 2 | 0.252% |
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 76 of the 77 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 812 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 77 most recent posts we hold, published 18 July 2026 to 10 November 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’s own ‘edited’ marker: 0 of 28 posts held from the last 30 days (0%) carried it when this register last read them. The marker says a post was changed after publishing, not what it said before — this register holds the earlier wording only where an edit fell between two of its own reads (see the edit ledger and how it is measured).
From eBay to Vinted, UK’s “Age Verification” Rules Spreading Already The UK’s so-called “social media ban” hasn’t even come into force yet, and already its remit is set to spread beyond social media. We previously reported that OfCom – the UK’s official censorship office – have announced that facial scans aren’t accurate enough to enforce the ban, and adults hoping to prove they are over 16 may need to use their ph…
🤬7😢1
Photo, posted without a caption
👍6🔥2
With regard to our ongoing analysis of Judy Wood's book - 'Where did the Towers Go' - Specific points and comparative analysis about key data in Wood's book have been produced 1. The 'anomalous' EM signals recorded on 9/11 were provably NOT anomalous or even slightly unusual. Wood is i error to claim they were. 2. Hurricane Erin's size, duration and pathway were NOT unusual. And it WAS reported, several times on …
👍5❤1👏1🤔1
Policing the Crisis: Discipline and Punish Policing the crisis? What crisis? The one defined by an obscenely wealthy and hegemonic class: the supposed crisis of the working class and how to control and discipline it. The title of this essay is inspired by Stuart Hall and his colleagues’ 1978 study Policing the Crisis, which examined how the establishment constructed a crisis of law and order to legitimise greater s…
👍3❤1
Empty Calories It feels to me that nearly everything we consume these days is not only empty calories, meaning none of it adds nutritious sustenance, but in fact is detrimental to physical, psychic, and spiritual health. But, for the moment, let’s just stick with the empty calorie idea—meaning nearly everything we take in is like eating sawdust. Think about it. TV, movies, video games, YouTube crap, AI slop, TikTo…
👍12❤6👏1😱1
Judy Wood, David Hughes & “Where Did the Towers Go?” – Part 1.5 “You’re not only wrong, you’re wrong at the top of your voice.” Bad Day at Black Rock This is not the planned second part of the my review of Dr Judy Wood’s “Where Did the Towers Go?”, rather it is an unplanned “part 1.5”, the existence of which is necessitated by the unexpected arrival of a response to the first part. David Hughes has written a crit…
👍3👏2👎1
Politicians Come and Go. The Machinery of Oppression Remains “There is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame?” V for Vendetta …
👍12❤1🔥1
US Midterms & its “changing relationship” with Israel – A Tale of Two Elections The last week has seen two major elections go to the polls – the parliamentary election in Israel and the US midterms – and the stories of those elections are tightly intertwined. In Israel, a close vote has seen no party finish with an outright majority, with either Netanyahu’s bloc or the opposition bloc needing the support of a surgi…
👍3👏1
Midterms 2026 – America goes to the polls! It’s voting day for the “most important election of our lifetime”. Again. These midterms will decide control of congress for the final two years of Trump’s Presidency, and set the narrative for those years and the next Presidential term. Either Trump retains control, and everything that goes wrong is the Republicans fault. Or there’s a “blue wave” and the Democrat contr…
👍5🤮3❤1
Encroachment and Blight: Visualising the Right to Be If someone were to suddenly drop you in Amsterdam Noord or a new-build project in Toronto or Copenhagen, you might have some difficulty knowing which country you were in. The architecture and activities of the street would be similar: the ‘universal city’ by design conveys a sense of placelessness. We see standardised architecture, chain retail dominating, zoned …
👍6❤2😱1
The Hive ‘In three hundred metres, turn right off the dual carriageway…’ A grey stack of cubes and rectangles sat on the horizon like an abandoned Tetris game as he finished his sausage McMuffin, washing it down with a sip of vanilla latte. As a food tech correspondent, Eliot Cranum permitted himself these small indulgences between reporting on the latest culinary innovations. Whether it was 3D-printed meat or dai…
👍1
OfCom Says “Facial Scans Not Accurate Enough” – Digital ID, here we come! The UK’s much-anticipated “social media ban” isn’t even actually law yet, and it’s already proving itself an obvious front for pushing digital ID on the whole country. The so-called “social media ban for under-16s” – more accurately an “online anonymity ban” for everyone – is due to come into force in March 2027, and the build up to that happ…
🤬14👍4❤1
Showing the 12 most recent of 77 posts we hold for @offguardian. 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.
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.
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.
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.
This channel appears in 15 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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 11 November 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“OffGuardian (official)” (@offguardian), 8,527 subscribers as measured 11 November 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/offguardian.
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.