Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) engagement report
@internetfreedom - 94K followers on X
Measured over 24 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 20, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 70 interactions against 94K followers, an engagement rate of 0.076%. Measured over 24 original posts, its engagement rate beats 46% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 4.2K times each, and 1.67% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 4.47% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 3.3 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 60% of days. Most posts go out around 11:00 UTC, and Friday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 24 posts sampled, 50% carry an image or video, 29% are part of a thread and 46% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 3.9K interactions, about 55x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #hearingupdate, #privacysupreme, #dissent.
Measured over 24 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 20, 2026. Recurring tags: #hearingupdate, #privacysupreme, #dissent.
Compared with accounts its own size
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)'s engagement rate beats 46% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 7 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 56% 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 0.076%, Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) sits above the 25th percentile of the 205,048 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the below the median band, which runs 0.024% to 0.143%.
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 11:00 UTC, and Friday 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 | 50% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 46% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 50% 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.
- 46% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts, so a large share of this account's output sits in the weakest bucket we measure.
- Its average post runs 991 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 8, 202655x their median
The Press Club of India strongly condemns the suspension of the Instagram accounts of three independent journalists following their ground reporting from Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, on a public health crisis involving the deaths of children from the Adivasi community. https://t.co/3lcjVXcbEd
- Sep 10, 20266.0x their median
On September 10th, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, a vague law that was being used to arrest people for simply expressing dissent online. 11 years later, Maharashtra wants to bring it back in a new form, by amending the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for "online criminal defamation." But defamation is already covered under Section 356 of the BNS, and civil remedies already exist. So why does the police need this new power? Recent FIRs against citizens and influencers for calling out potholes and infrastructure failures may hold the answer. We've fought this battle before. We don't need a new 66A with a new number.
- Aug 18, 20265.7x their median
IFF has written to the Union Home Secretary and the Census Commissioner over the household survey notified four days ago. Serial numbers 36 to 40 ask for mobile, Aadhaar, voter ID and passport numbers, not whether you have them, unlike serial number 40, which only asks about availability of a driving license. IFF supports enumerating caste for substantive equality. But pairing Aadhaar numbers with religion and caste sits against the Aadhaar Act's bar on profiling, and the questionnaire itself remains unpublished. We are not opposed to the census. We want it conducted in a way that earns public trust.
- Sep 4, 20265.3x their median
Statement: Delhi Police's facial recognition sweep at Jantar Mantar is unreliable and unlawful: the list of 2,873 must be withdrawn New Delhi, 4 September 2026 The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is gravely concerned by The Indian Express's investigation, published today, into the Delhi Police's claim that its Facial Recognition System (FRS) identified 2,873 persons with "criminal antecedents" at the Jantar Mantar protests of 20 to 26 July 2026. Of the 205 persons accused of murder, rape and attempt to murder whom it checked, the Express found that at least 25 were lodged in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails when the software placed them at the protest. Some had been in custody for years. This is not a marginal error as it displays a 12 per cent rate of demonstrable impossibility in the only sample independently verified, with no reason to believe the remaining 2,668 names are any better. Yet on 1 September 2026, at the Union's request, the Supreme Court, while quashing all FIRs against student protesters under Article 142, permitted the Delhi Police to register "fresh and specific" FIRs against these 2,873 persons. The Court was entitled to assume that the sworn affidavit of 17 August 2026 rested on verified facts, however these appear to be subject to further verification. A system the police know to be unreliable In a 2022 RTI reply to IFF, the Delhi Police disclosed that it treats a match as "positive" at a similarity score of just 80 per cent, and retains lower-scoring "false positives" for "empirical investigation". The system was procured in 2018 under the Delhi High Court's orders in Sadhan Haldar v. NCT of Delhi to trace missing children; the Court was later told its accuracy was around 2 per cent. A tool bought to find lost children is now building dossiers on protesters, which is a function creep. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, nine judges held that any intrusion into privacy must satisfy legality, necessity and proportionality. Legality requires a law, and there is none. The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 permits "measurements", including photographs, to be taken only from persons convicted, arrested or detained (Sections 3 to 5), not the scanning of every face at a lawful assembly against a police database. Neither the Delhi Police Act, 1978 nor the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 confers such a power. The "Crime Kundli" database against which 2,402 of these matches were run has no disclosed statutory basis or retention limit, and the affidavit does not say whether the 2,873 are convicts, accused, or merely named in a case. A disproportionate assault on the right to protest In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) 17 SCC 324, the Supreme Court held that peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar is protected by Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 requires the State to choose the least restrictive measure. Sifting thousands of faces to single out people for their status rather than their conduct fails every limb of that test. It also inverts the presumption of innocence: "field verification" means police at the doors of 2,873 households whose only established act is, at most, attending a protest, or, as the Express shows, not even that. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales held live facial recognition unlawful in R (Bridges) v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 for leaving "too much discretion" to individual officers. Further, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/48/31, 2021) has called for a moratorium on remote biometric identification in public spaces, and the EU's AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 5(1)(h)) prohibits it for law enforcement save in narrow, judicially authorised cases. Our demands In July 2026, IFF wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, seeking an end to live facial recognition at protest sites, deletion of protesters' facial templates and match results, and publication of the governing SOPs. Those demands stand. Today we further call upon: 1. The Delhi Police to withdraw the list of 2,873 persons, place the Express's findings before the Supreme Court, and suspend all "field verification" pending an independent technical audit of the FRS; 2. The Union Government to impose a moratorium on facial recognition at public assemblies; 3. Parliament to enact a statutory framework for biometric surveillance with prior judicial authorisation, retention limits and independent oversight; 4. The Supreme Court to be informed that the affidavit it relied upon has been shown to be wrong and subject to further verification.
- Sep 4, 20264.8x their median
How can the same person be in two places at once? Delhi Police's facial recognition flagged 2,873 people as having criminal records at the Jantar Mantar protests. 25 of them were already in jail at the time. No legal backing. No accountability. An 80% "match" treated as proof. IFF has an RTI pending, transferred 14 times, still unanswered. We're demanding this list be withdrawn and a moratorium on facial recognition surveillance.
- Aug 26, 20264.5x their median
He was having coffee, alone. A stranger's smart glasses recorded him without consent, and the clip became a reel with lakhs of views. Ray-Ban Meta glasses are designed to look like ordinary eyewear, so you'd never know you're being filmed. When our client complained, Meta said it didn't violate community standards. We've sent legal notices to the creator and to Meta. Covert surveillance isn't a design flaw, it's the product.
- Aug 18, 20263.8x their median
The Union Government’s 40-question Household Schedule for Census 2027 asks for Aadhaar, mobile number, Voter ID, passport number, driving-licence status, total bank accounts and COVID-19 vaccination details. It will also collect caste, religion, language and other sensitive demographic information. IFF has written to the Union Home Secretary and Registrar General seeking deletion of these identity-linked fields or clear safeguards around their use. (1/8) Read More: https://t.co/ZF2FreGrrt
- Aug 24, 20263.4x their median
The Department of Telecommunications is now requiring mandatory biometric authentication for SIM cards. This biometric process will exclude millions, most often the vulnerable, and create another database of our faces. All of this is being done to limit mobile connections to nine per person, but it will leave many families without even one
- Aug 20, 20263.2x their median
NIXI has now given a third explanation for suspending https://t.co/6D4RZacQWP. First it was “Invalid WHOIS”. Then a “critical keyword”. Now, three weeks into the suspension, it says “Sansad” is a reserved term for Constitutional Authorities. But NIXI’s own reserved names list does not reserve “sansad” as a term, and https://t.co/6D4RZacQWP is not on it. (1/8) Read More: https://t.co/BSrSHIC1hf
- Sep 8, 20263.1x their median
Religion and caste tell us who you are. Your Aadhaar, phone number and bank account tell us how to connect you to every database in the state. Census 2027 is India’s first digital census and enumeration is to be conducted through mobile applications on the personal smartphones of approximately 31–34 lakh enumerators and supervisors. As Down To Earth reported while publishing the notification, no Indian census from 1872 to 2011 has ever asked for a document number. Comic by @aaaaadvik
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 70 interactions against 94K followers, an engagement rate of 0.076%. Measured over 24 original posts, its engagement rate beats 46% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 4.2K times each, and 1.67% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 4.47% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 3.3 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 60% of days. Most posts go out around 11:00 UTC, and Friday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 24 posts sampled, 50% carry an image or video, 29% are part of a thread and 46% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 3.9K interactions, about 55x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #hearingupdate, #privacysupreme, #dissent.
- What is Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)'s engagement rate on X?
- Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) has an engagement rate of 0.076%, based on the median interactions across 24 original posts from the last 30 days against 93,690 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.076%, Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) sits above the 25th percentile of the 205,048 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 @internetfreedom have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 46% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts), which puts it in the middle of its size range 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 @internetfreedom post?
- Most posts go out around 11:00 UTC, and Friday is its busiest day, at roughly 3.33 posts per day across the measured window.