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 12 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 98% 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.
Growth
25 measurements spanning 97 days, net -130. 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 7,327–7,496 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 25
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
11 Nov 2026, 10:05
7,346
-15
8 Nov 2026, 00:44
7,361
-25
4 Nov 2026, 13:54
7,386
-6
1 Nov 2026, 20:28
7,392
-6
29 Oct 2026, 21:09
7,398
-7
24 Oct 2026, 05:37
7,405
+2
21 Oct 2026, 01:00
7,403
-2
17 Oct 2026, 13:20
7,405
-3
14 Oct 2026, 07:57
7,408
+16
10 Oct 2026, 19:01
7,392
-4
4 Oct 2026, 21:39
7,396
+18
25 Sept 2026, 12:56
7,378
-14
16 Sept 2026, 19:38
7,392
-6
12 Sept 2026, 18:59
7,398
-9
8 Sept 2026, 14:56
7,407
-11
28 Aug 2026, 09:18
7,418
-16
25 Aug 2026, 05:48
7,434
-10
22 Aug 2026, 11:42
7,444
-13
19 Aug 2026, 00:11
7,457
-7
16 Aug 2026, 02:09
7,464
first reading
Engagement
60 posts held, back to 9 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 31 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
12.9%
avg views ÷ 7,346 subscribers
Avg views / post
944
2 posts measured
Reaction rate
2.12%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
2
of 60 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 November 2026
Posts held
60 (9 July 2026 – 7 November 2026)
Views total
1,888
Reactions total
40
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
11 Nov 2026, 02:25 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
3m 06s
Average length
1m 33s
Measured directly from 2 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
1,041 reactions across 52 posts, in 8 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 81.3% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
👍
846
81.3%
👎
100
9.61%
👏
33
3.17%
👌
23
2.21%
🔥
17
1.63%
🖕
12
1.15%
😐
5
0.48%
🤔
5
0.48%
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 53 of the 60 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 1,053 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 60 most recent posts we hold, published 9 July 2026 to 7 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.
Recent posts
Telegram’s own ‘edited’ marker: 1 of 2 posts held from the last 30 days (50.0%) 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).
✅ در پلتفرم «کارزار» یه کارزاری راه افتاده با عنوان «کارزار درخواست کاهش قیمت کتابها».
فقط امیدوارم بقیهی کارزارهایی که در این پلتفرم راه افتادن به اندازهی این یکی احمقانه نباشن. ببخشید؛ بر واژهی «احمقانه» تأکید دارم و واقعاً نمیتونم از کلمهی دیگری غیر از «احمقانه» استفاده کنم، چون نشون میده که آغازکنندگان این کارزار از ابتداییترین (تأکید میکنم: ابتداییترین) اطلاعات مربوط به کار کتاب بیخبرند. اگر از ابتدای…
✅ همچنان خبر مهم: دونالد ترامپ برای دومین بار رئیسجمهور آمریکا شد
با خواندن جملهی بالا، شاید گمان کنید نویسندهی این مطلب، از خوابی دوساله بیدار شده و تازه خبر پیروزی ترامپ را به او دادهاند؛ و به همین دلیل در ساعاتی که تقریباً همهی خبرها بر نتایج انتخابات کنگرهی آمریکا متمرکز است، «پیروزی دونالد ترامپ» را خبروار در صدر مطلب خودش نشانده است.
بگذارید بگویم داستان چیست. به نظر من، نهفقط الان (که دو سال از انتخابا…
کودکان از من کتاب میخواهند؛ من از شما!
✍🏻 حسین بینش
بعد از چهار سال کتابخوانی و بلندخوانی با کودکان و نوجوانان افغانستان، امسال در ۱۹ جوزا (خرداد)، حرکتی را با عنوان «چالش ۱۰۰ روز دویدن و خواندن برای کودکان افغانستان» راهاندازی کردم. در این صد روز، پیش از طلوع آفتاب، پنج کیلومتر دویدم و یک کتاب خواندم. تا روز بیستوهفتم، هیچکس همراهم نشد؛ اما در روز بیستوهفتم، دو کودک آمدند و در روزهای بعد، روزانه ۳۰ تا ۴۰ کودک…
✅ چاپ ۲۰۲۶
اگر انتشار کتاب در شرایط فعلی به یک ماموریت تقریباً غیرممکن تبدیل نشده بود جا داشت این کتاب ترجمه و منتشر شود
عنوان: اندیشیدن با هوش مصنوعی، تصمیمگیری بدون آن (۲۵ داوری تحلیلی که فقط انسانها میتوانند انجام دهند)
نوشتهی جیاون کانگ، ۱۱۰ صفحه
قیمت نسخهی الکترونیک: ۹ یورو
در عصر هوش مصنوعی، چگونه میتوان از تواناییهای این فناوری برای تقویت تفکر و تحلیل بهره گرفت، بیآنکه استقلال فکری و قدرت تصمیمگیر…
✅ چرا کتاب رابطهی پنهانی برای همه (حتی آنها که ظاهراً با موضوع خیانت درگیر نیستند) سودمند است؟
📕 «رابطهی پنهانی» یا «خیانت» برای بسیاری از انسانها به نحوی مطرح است؛ حتی اگر هیچگاه خیانت نکنند یا خیانت نبینند. این اتفاق بههیچوجه صرفاً یک رفتار جنسی یا عاطفی نیست؛ حادثهایست که میتواند تصویری را که آدمها از خودشان، شریکشان، و کل رابطهشان دارند فروبریزد. گاه حتی میتواند تصویر ما از کل زندگی را تغییر دهد. وا…
✅ منتشر شد
کتابِ
ژرژ باتای؛ معرفی انتقادی
نویسنده: بنیامین نویس
مترجم: نیلوفر آقا ابراهیمی
♦️ دربارهی کتاب:
ژرژ باتای را با داستانهای اروتیکش و با پژوهشهایش دربارهی اروتیسم میشناسیم. بنیامین نویس در کتاب «ژرژ باتای» با زبانی شیوا و روان تصویری روشن از باتای به ما میدهد. در فصلی از کتاب با تمرکز بر «اروتیسم» و نیز آخرین اثر باتای، «اشکهای اروس»، به بررسی تصویر امر اروتیک و سکسوالیته در چارچوب اندیشهی باتای می…
✅
هرگاه دیدی غوغائیان برای چیزی کف و سوت میزنند در فساد آن تردید نکن!
سنکا (به نقل از کتاب تفکر نقادانه برای زندگی بهتر، ص. ۱۰۱)
🌐 کانال پارادوکس:
🆔 @paradoxizer
〰️
✅ پینوشت: معرفی کتاب آخر (رابطهی پنهانی) رو میتونید اینجا مشاهده کنید. لینک نمونهی پیدیاف و نمونهی تلگرامی هم در همون لینک اومده.
توضیح کاملتر درباره شیوه تخفیف اختیاری هم اینجا
📽 The Mirror (1975) by Andrei Tarkovsky
🎥 آینه
👤 آندری تارکوفسکی
🗓 جمعه ۱۷ مهر
🕟 ۴ تا ۸
⏳ ۱۰۶ دقیقه
📚 پنجمین جلسه از دورۀ فیلموسوفی
( تحلیل ساختاری فیلم فلسفی)
🏡 سالن سینمایی ۷۰ نفره الوند، بالای آرژانتین
▪️ورودی:
۳۵۰ هزار تومان
🛎 لطفا جهت ثبتنام تصویر فیش واریزی را در تلگرام به همراه نام و نام خانوادگی شریف به آیدی آقای سعید نجفی ارسال نمایید:
+989192330338
@Civilcivil92
شماره کارت:
5022-2910-4293-6722
حنیف شم…
✅ پیدیاف نمونهی کتاب
رابطهی پنهانی (دربارهی لذتها و چالشهای خیانت) / نسخهی بدون سانسور
✍🏻 مدرسهی زندگی آلن دوباتن
✍🏻 ترجمه: کاوه خسروانی
♦️ بهای نسخهی تلگرامی و پیدیاف: ۱۸۰ تومان (نسخهی الکترونیک با شیوهی تخفیف اختیاری منتشر میشود)
♦️ نسخهی تلگرامی همین جا ارسال میشود، اما پیدیاف، در صورت تمایل خواننده، صرفاً به صورت فایل گوگلدرایو به جیمیل ارسال میشود
☑️ نمونهی نسخهی تلگرامی را میتوانید در ای…
✅ دلار ۲۵۴ هزار تومانی دو رو دارد.
یک روی آن «تروریسم اقتصادی» علیه مردم ایران از جانب آمریکاست.
روی دیگرش تحمیل «شهادتطلبی» از جانب جمهوری اسلامی به مردم ایران است. زندگی با دلار ۲۵۰ تومانی و حقوقهای ۲۰ میلیون تومانی (و حتی کمتر) یعنی یک ایرانی وقتی سر بر بالین میگذارد فقط یک امید میتواند داشته باشد: اینکه فردا بیدار نشود!
مردم ایران دارند مصداق آن مصرع میشوند که «میسوز چنان که بر نیاید دودت». حداکثر دستاور…
✅ منتشر شد
رابطهی پنهانی (دربارهی لذتها و چالشهای خیانت)
✍🏻 مدرسهی زندگی آلن دوباتن
✍🏻 ترجمه: کاوه خسروانی
♦️ بهای نسخهی تلگرامی و پیدیاف: ۱۸۰ تومان (نسخهی الکترونیک با شیوهی «تخفیف اختیاری» منتشر میشود)
♦️ نسخهی تلگرامی همین جا ارسال میشود، اما پیدیاف (در صورت تمایل خواننده) صرفاً به صورت فایل گوگلدرایو به جیمیل ارسال میشود
☑️ نمونهی نسخهی تلگرامی را میتوانید در این لینک مشاهده کنید.
☑️ نمونهی…
👍5😐3
Signed Kaveh khosravani
Showing the 12 most recent of 60 posts we hold for @paradoxizer. 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.
Polls
The 5 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
آیا با این بخش از این متن موافقید:
توجه به نقش منافع شخصی صرفاً یک جور کنجکاوی روانشناختی یا دقت غیرلازم نیست، بلکه «شرط فهم» است؛ شرط فهم بسیاری از موضعگیریهای سیاسی
موافقم97%
مخالفم0%
نظر دیگری دارم (در صورت تمایل، در کامنت)5%
The shares total 102%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
اگر هدف، تأمین منافع مردم ایران باشد، جنگی با مشخصاتی که در این چند ماه دیدیم، اصلاً «راه» نیست که بخواهیم دربارهی «راه اول» یا «راه آخر» بودنش بحث کنیم
موافقم76%
مخالفم21%
نظرم نیاز به توضیح داد (در صورت تمایل در کامنت)3%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
✅ با این دیدگاه موافقید یا مخالف؟:
در حال حاضر، مردم هیچ نقشی در تحولات سیاسی ندارند و بنابراین کوشش در جهت افزایش آگاهیهای خودمان و دیگران بیفایده است.
موافقم15%
مخالفم76%
نیاز به توضیح دارد (در صورت تمایل در کامنت)9%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
در صورتی که نظام سیاسی مطلوب و مورداعتماد شما در کشور حکمفرما باشد، کدام گزینه را جهت ارتباط با هموطنانتان ترجیح میدهید؟
پلتفرمهای خارجی (اینستاگرام، تلگرام، ...)79%
پلتفرمهای داخلی24%
The shares total 103%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 60 most recent posts we hold, published 9 July 2026 to 7 November 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
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 11 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.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
Dead references
1
handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
Evidenced gone
1
we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
Never seen alive
0
vacant every time we have ever looked
@paradoxizer 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.
Evidenced gone
We ourselves saw each of these resolve to a real page at some point before it went vacant — a genuine, evidenced change, not an inference from absence.
@tan_aamizi named in 9 posts, 8 August 2026 – 29 August 2026 · confirmed gone 4 November 2026 (two independent sightings — see how we confirm a dead handle)evidenced
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.
کتابخانه فراسوی دانش @Farasoyedaneshlib · 19,484 Telegram ranks this channel #61 of 86 here — alongside 85 others — read 3 October 2026
RADΙO PLAN @radioplan · 27,382 Telegram ranks this channel #71 of 71 here — alongside 70 others — read 10 September 2026
This channel appears in 2 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 11 November 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“پارادوکس” (@paradoxizer), 7,346 subscribers as measured 11 November 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/paradoxizer.
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.