Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM engagement report
@echipiuk - 122K followers on X
Measured over 16 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 5, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 488 interactions against 122K followers, an engagement rate of 0.402%. Measured over 16 original posts, its engagement rate beats 78% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size. Comparing inside a size band matters here: engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly just re-measure the follower count. Posts are seen about 19K times each, and 2.58% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 15.5% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 2.5 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 53% of days. Most posts go out around 14:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 16 posts sampled, 63% carry an image or video, 13% are part of a thread and 25% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 6.3K interactions, about 13x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #abpoli, #cdnpoli, #fullmoratoriumnow.
Measured over 16 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 5, 2026. Recurring tags: #abpoli, #cdnpoli, #fullmoratoriumnow.
Compared with accounts its own size
Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM's engagement rate beats 78% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 8 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 69% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.402%, Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM sits above the 50th percentile of the 205,374 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the above the median band, which runs 0.143% to 0.678%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.024% |
| 50th percentile | 0.143% |
| 75th percentile | 0.678% |
| 90th percentile | 2.55% |
| 99th percentile | 82.4% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 14:00 UTC, and Thursday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 63% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 25% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 63% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 25% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts.
- Its average post runs 923 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Sep 20, 202613x their median
There is something deeply unhealthy happening in our public discourse. When people question government policy, they are called extremists. When they raise concerns about immigration or social cohesion, they are called racists. When they question public-health decisions or speak about vaccine injuries, they are called anti-vaxxers. When they challenge the constitutional status quo or discuss Alberta’s future, they are called traitors. These labels are rarely intended to encourage dialogue. They are used to end it. But questioning government is not extremism. Challenging existing laws is not lawlessness. Discussing constitutional change is not disloyalty. And disagreeing with government policy does not make someone dangerous. In a healthy democracy, citizens are free to question authority, challenge prevailing ideas and advocate for change. That is not a threat to democracy. It is democracy. The real danger is a political culture that silences legitimate concerns, punishes disagreement, disparages citizens and treats them as enemies simply because they refuse to conform. We will not rebuild public trust by ignoring this reality. We will rebuild public trust by listening, answering difficult questions and addressing the substance of their concerns. Dialogue does not weaken a country. Refusing to have it does.
- Oct 4, 20268.5x their median
This sums up EXACTLY how Canada is doing right now. A ‘professional’ singer hired for the Canada vs Peru game in Montreal cannot even remember the words to her own national anthem. A task that school children manage daily is too complex for her. What an embarrassment. https://t.co/AiyUL6YpT3
- Sep 26, 20265.8x their median
“Who is the economy working for?” This article about Brookfield deserves serious attention. The company has extensive interests in Canada’s infrastructure, energy and real estate. Mark Carney formerly held a senior role there, and Canadians are entitled to more than vague assurances about how potential conflicts are being managed. But are we missing the bigger picture by talking only about Carney’s personal conflict of interest? Who owns and controls the infrastructure Canadians depend on? How is public money being used, who stands to benefit, and what does this mean for Canada’s long-term economic security? Those questions deserve clear answers. Public trust depends on Canadians being able to see the decisions, the financial interests and the safeguards for themselves. If public money is being used to support private investment, the government should be able to show exactly who benefits and why it serves the public interest. Asking those questions is basic accountability. Read the article and make up your own mind.
- Sep 24, 20263.5x their median
I feel like this needs to be said because there is so much tension and division. It feels like every conversation is ready to become an argument. People are frustrated. Concerns are met with labels instead of answers, and people are pushed out. That will not rebuild trust. We must ask where public money goes, and expect officials to explain their decisions. Public service is a responsibility, not a favour. Science develops through questioning. Law develops through challenge. Democracy develops through disagreement. Instead of discouraging conversations or referendums, let’s encourage them. A strong democracy needs informed citizens who can disagree and still be heard. Progress actually comes from questioning the status quo.
- Oct 4, 20242.9x their median
I am beyond excited to announce that "Reconnect to Canada" is now available for purchase on Amazon! Let's elevate our country together by getting your copy today! ➡️ Get your copy here: https://t.co/1XXmPikmXI I will be holding an X Space later today to chat about this and more. Stay tuned for details!
- Sep 18, 20262.4x their median
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision providing some much-needed clarity about government action, administrative competence and accountability. This case captures one of the problems citizens face when challenging government action: too often, the response from the courts is essentially, “Well, they tried their best.” But shouldn’t we demand a higher standard when public institutions exercise significant authority, spend public money and administer programs supposedly in the “public interest”? Shouldn’t they be expected to administer those programs and services competently? Thankfully, in this case, the Supreme Court rejected the lower court’s conclusion that an administrative error had to be intentional or made in bad faith before it could constitute a serious irregularity. It does not. The Court recognized that honest, unintentional and good-faith errors can still cause serious harm. Elections Canada created a postal-code error, knew about it and failed to correct it for more than three weeks. As a result, a citizen’s vote was not counted, affecting the election result. Intentions matter, but so do consequences. “We tried our best” cannot excuse a serious failure that was within a public institution’s power to correct. Canadians need competence, responsibility and accountability from their governments. For goodness’ sake, that should not be difficult or controversial! Citizens should not have to sue their own government simply to obtain competent administration of the public institutions, services and programs they already fund. Government exists to serve the public, not to force citizens to fight through the courts to correct its avoidable mistakes. When government uses public money to shield itself from public accountability at virtually any cost, we have completely lost the plot. So, thank you to the Supreme Court of Canada for setting things straight. I hope this decision ensures that our public institutions and government officials understand that good intentions are not enough. Canadians are entitled to competent administration, meaningful accountability and consequences when serious, avoidable errors cause harm.
- Sep 24, 20262.2x their median
Is anyone actually surprised by the anger out there? It’s not like it appeared out of nowhere. People have been disparaged and pushed aside by the elected representatives who are supposed to represent them. Public institutions and officials are not listening, and public trust is broken. Some are saying that holding a referendum is causing division and hate. Not only is that nonsense, but saying so pits neighbours against neighbours and families against families, instead of recognizing a referendum for what it is: a way for citizens to have a direct say. Meanwhile, billions in public money have been spent with questions about accountability still unanswered. Businesses were forcibly shut down, people lost their livelihoods, and many are still living with the consequences. People were coerced by their own government and shamed by their neighbours. Are we supposed to ignore all of that and then wonder why people are angry? Are we serious? To all the “leaders” out there: it’s time to look in the mirror and recognize how your own actions have contributed to the anger and loss of trust. Listen to people. Answer the hard questions. Have the conversations you have been avoiding. There are only two ways to lead: divide and conquer, or build and unite.
- Sep 29, 20261.8x their median
PRESS RELEASE - Statement on the Sakamoto Class Action Decision We are deeply disappointed by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta’s decision to dismiss the application to certify Sakamoto v Attorney General of Canada, a proposed class action against the Government of Canada and the Province of Alberta. Carrie Sakamoto suffered life-altering injuries after receiving C0VID vaccines. The decision records the position she advanced in seeking accountability: “Ms. Sakamoto submits that in this context, the Defendants assumed a duty of care to an identifiable group by holding themselves out as authoritative, by enforcing coercive public health orders and by compelling participation in a de facto mandated vaccine program. She submits that the effect of the Defendants’ fear-based messaging and public restrictions amounted to compulsion to get vaccinated; she submits that the Defendants eliminated the conditions needed for informed choice and exceeded their statutory authority.” The Court concluded that the claims as pleaded do not disclose viable causes of action and dismissed the application to proceed as a class action. This means the class action will not provide an open examination of the decisions public officials and agencies made, the representations they gave the public, and the pressure they placed on people to follow their directives. Class actions give people a way to seek answers together and, where wrongdoing is established, change harmful behaviour. Public trust suffers when people cannot meaningfully examine the conduct of their governments or hold public officials and agencies to account. Carrie and other vaccine-injured people, along with the public, still deserve a transparent investigation and answers. “To say I am devastated is an understatement. We poured our hearts, our health, and our truth into this effort, not just for ourselves, but for every single person who felt unheard, unsupported, and left behind. Hearing that our case won't proceed feels like a massive setback, and it hurts deeply, said Ms. Sakamoto. "While this legal door may have closed, it does not erase our stories, our pain, or the reality of what we’ve experienced. Standing up for truth and advocacy is never easy, but doing it alongside this incredible community has been a powerful reminder that none of us are truly alone. “Thank you to everyone who supported us, shared their stories, stood by our side, and kept believing in this effort,” Ms. Sakamoto added. “I will forever be an advocate for the vaccine injured like me, and I will continue to work with Canrise19 and their efforts to help the injured.” “People who took the vaccine for the public good should not be abandoned by the governments that demanded their compliance,” said Eva Chipiuk, counsel for Ms. Sakamoto. “Carrie and others who suffered serious injuries deserve compassionate care, timely support, and answers about the decisions that affected their lives.” “Class actions can give people a way to seek answers together and change harmful behaviour where wrongdoing is established,” Chipiuk added. “Public trust suffers when people cannot meaningfully examine government conduct or hold public officials and agencies to account. We are disappointed that Carrie and other vaccine-injured people will not have that opportunity through this class action.” The federal vaccine injury support program has been an abject failure for people like Carrie, and its replacement has yet to deliver the timely, compassionate support they need. Carrie described her experience with the federal program in her evidence as “dehumanizing and at times abusive.” We urge the Government of Alberta to establish its own vaccine injury support program. Quebec has administered a provincial vaccine injury compensation program since 1985. Alberta should take responsibility for supporting vaccine-injured Albertans and provide timely care, practical assistance, and fair compensation to those in need.
- Sep 15, 2026
In politics, many talk about building a “big tent.” A wise man once described that to me as “lying a little bit to everyone.” It may be the most accurate description of politics I have ever heard. I see this time and time again, especially on the right. They seem to believe that the way to win more votes is to appeal to everyone, compromising their principles, softening their convictions and telling each group what it wants to hear. Meanwhile, the left rarely does this. They double down on their convictions, convinced of their own righteousness, regardless of the issue. News flash: the right’s approach is not working! People are tired of politicians who try to stand for everything and therefore stand for nothing. Be clear about your values. State your goals. Defend your principles. And do not waver whenever the political winds change. You do not earn trust by trying to be everything to everyone. You earn it by standing firmly for something and giving people a reason to come to you.
- Oct 1, 2026
Back home and back in the tractor. A few thoughts after the first week back in Ottawa. https://t.co/D82KpV5Z6i
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Recurring topics
The most frequent hashtags in the sampled posts. They describe what this account writes about; they are not a performance signal, and the catalog-wide breakdown on the hub shows how little hashtag count moves.
Buy or sell Twitter (X) accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for Twitter (X) accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 488 interactions against 122K followers, an engagement rate of 0.402%. Measured over 16 original posts, its engagement rate beats 78% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size. Comparing inside a size band matters here: engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly just re-measure the follower count. Posts are seen about 19K times each, and 2.58% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 15.5% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 2.5 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 53% of days. Most posts go out around 14:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 16 posts sampled, 63% carry an image or video, 13% are part of a thread and 25% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 6.3K interactions, about 13x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #abpoli, #cdnpoli, #fullmoratoriumnow.
- What is Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM's engagement rate on X?
- Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM (@echipiuk) has an engagement rate of 0.402%, based on the median interactions across 16 original posts from the last 30 days against 121,841 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.402%, Eva Chipiuk, BSc, LLB, LLM sits above the 50th percentile of the 205,374 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @echipiuk have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 78% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts), which puts it in the top quarter for its size group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @echipiuk post?
- Most posts go out around 14:00 UTC, and Thursday is its busiest day, at roughly 2.5 posts per day across the measured window.