Robert Graham engagement report
@robertgraham - 69K followers on X
Measured over 18 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 18, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 292 interactions against 69K followers, an engagement rate of 0.425%. Measured over 18 original posts, its engagement rate beats 73% of 15,519 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 35K times each, and 0.841% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 50.1% 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, though only 17% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 22:00 UTC, and Tuesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 18 posts sampled, 61% carry an image or video, 11% are part of a thread and 11% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 8.0K interactions, about 27x its own typical post.
Measured over 18 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 18, 2026. Recurring tag: #foia.
Compared with accounts its own size
Robert Graham's engagement rate beats 73% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (15,519 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 5 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 35% 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 0.425%, Robert Graham sits above the 50th percentile of the 156,839 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the above the median band, which runs 0.128% to 0.604%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.003% |
| 25th percentile | 0.022% |
| 50th percentile | 0.128% |
| 75th percentile | 0.604% |
| 90th percentile | 2.32% |
| 99th percentile | 83.4% |
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 22:00 UTC, and Tuesday 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 | 61% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 11% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 61% 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.
- 11% 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 825 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 14, 202627x their median
The Vatican has officially declared environmental destruction a ”sin against creation and the Creator” in a major new doctrinal text. The 29,000-word document, titled Caring for Our Common Home, elevates ecological concern from a merely political or scientific issue into a direct matter of personal faith. Authorized under Pope Leo XIV, the text declares that destroying natural habitats, polluting, and exploiting resources are not just civic failures, but a 'sin against creation and against the Creator' that directly violates God's plan. This shift from Pope Francis' earlier concept of 'ecological sin' to a more explicit 'sin against the Creator' is designed to reshape how believers view their daily environmental impact. The Vatican emphasizes that failing to safeguard the planet severely harms the poorest populations and future generations, distorting the core relationships that define humanity. By placing ecological action squarely in the realm of moral responsibility, the Church is challenging millions of people to treat environmental care as a fundamental requirement of their faith. source: O'Connell, G. (2026). Vatican theological commission defines 'sin against creation and the Creator' in new document. America Magazine.
- Sep 17, 202625x their median
Benghazi cost four American lives at a single compound, and Congress gave it ten investigations and two years of televised fury. Beirut in 1983 produced a commission within weeks, and Pearl Harbor had its inquiry inside eleven days. That is how a serious country treats a military disaster. This week the Pentagon's own inspector general confirmed that Iran has damaged or destroyed hundreds of buildings at American bases in eight countries, along with dozens of aircraft. Neither Vietnam, Iraq nor Afghanistan ever saw the American footprint across a whole region hammered at once, and the public only learned of it because soldiers leaked photographs while Hegseth shrugged about the occasional "squirter." General Caine warned before the first bomb fell that stockpiles and defences were not ready. Hegseth, a former television host, has since fired or blocked more than eighty generals and admirals, so the war is being run with the adults removed from the building. When a Republican congressman filed eight articles of impeachment this week, the Speaker sent the House home early rather than allow a vote. https://t.co/HetXlxeSaU
- Sep 17, 20269.9x their median
Trump: "If I'm in an electric boat and I see I'm going down and the water is pouring in, so I know I'm going to be electrocuted, but 5 yards away there are sharks. Do I take the electrocution or do I go swimming with the sharks? I'll take the electrocution." https://t.co/3dw9ehNeet
- Sep 15, 20268.7x their median
Trump's response to the AI safety crisis reminds me of the early days of COVID in 2020. He's so far out of his depth - morally, intellectually, and in terms of his ability to care about anyone else - that it's as if there were no President at all. We're on our own, people.
- Sep 15, 20265.4x their median
Corporate Infosec sends a phishing test email, I click, and somehow I'm the asshole because "[I] failed the test; had this been real it would have destroyed the company network"? If me clicking can destroy the network, I'm not the one in this conversation who sucks at their job.
- Sep 17, 20264.4x their median
sending this video to a group chat with your parents, uncle and aunts to see their reaction is single-handedly worth $2T in capex, a 3x in electricity bills and 14x DRAM price hike https://t.co/scGNG1ccMQ
- Sep 17, 20262.2x their median
Does @haveibeenpwned have a friend at @OpenAI? We’re struggling to get our MCP server into their plugin store and the reasons why are super vague. Getting it into Claude was a breeze, it shouldn’t be this hard. https://t.co/1f53KrHI6C
- Sep 14, 20261.8x their median
What does it mean to pace the frontier? Over the last month, @random_walker and I have analyzed the loss-of-control incidents at AI companies to understand what technical and policy interventions can improve safety and what companies should do to pace the frontier. The result is a new 13,000 word essay — our most substantial writing on AI safety since AI as Normal Technology. A summary of our arguments: 1) The polarization between the cybersecurity and AI safety communities is counterproductive. The safety community largely sees these incidents as a crisis for alignment, and worries that these incidents will become more damaging as agents become more capable. Cybersecurity practitioners largely see companies failing to take basic security precautions. We offer a middle ground between these communities as a way forward for improving AI safety. 2) We agree with security practitioners that OpenAI did not take adequate protections for controlling their agents. But this is not just a matter of applying 30-year-old security methods to a new domain. Security for AI agents — AI control — while important, is not a solved problem. While known control methods would have prevented the Hugging Face incident, as agent capabilities continue to advance, we will only be able to control them if we invest adequately in control interventions. 3) We also agree with security practitioners’ implicit position that these incidents are primarily a security story. In the AI safety community, rogue agents are treated as inherently catastrophic because of the assumption that there is an endless list of risks that will arise from their development. We disagree. We have long advocated that the best approach to AI safety is to identify the risks and address those specific risks. Over the last few months, it has become clear that one urgent risk is cyberoffense, because it has unique properties that allow agents to carry it out autonomously. We should similarly invest in defenses against other specific risks, such as biorisk and risks from military AI. 4) We agree with the safety community that there is an urgent need for technical and policy interventions to prevent loss-of-control incidents. But in our view, marginal investments in control are more likely to be effective compared to those in alignment. We view these incidents as illustrating the lack of emphasis on AI control within companies, despite the availability of known techniques. More broadly, there are many common-sense policy proposals that could help promote investments in AI control where we share common ground with the safety community. 5) Organization governance should be a key tool for pacing the frontier. Unfortunately, AI companies are trying to reinvent basic aspects of organizational governance as a problem to be solved by improving the technology. But even developing better control techniques will not be enough if irresponsible individuals or teams within large organizations can choose not to use them. When a single misconfigured RL environment or unmonitored evaluation can cause real-world harm, individual teams should not be able to run potentially dangerous experiments without oversight from legal, security, and other teams. AI companies need processes for reviewing experiments, assigning responsibility for monitoring them, and investigating warning signs deeply before restarting experiments. If putting these processes in place requires pausing some experiments, companies should do so. 6) How should we reason about AI's impact on cybersecurity? It's plausible that advances in agent capabilities upset the offense-defense balance for cybersecurity. We cannot yet be certain, but there is enough evidence that agent capabilities might soon make widespread cyberoffense possible that urgent action is warranted. We discuss potential interventions for tilting the offense-defense balance towards defenders. 7) How our views have evolved over the last year. We take stock of AI progress and share how we have updated our views. In the essay, we did not pay sufficient attention to safety risks that arise during development and evaluation (as opposed to the widespread deployment of models). We were too confident that companies would take basic control precautions and underplayed the importance of jaggedness, which led us to underestimate how quickly capabilities could improve in domains such as cybersecurity. 8) At the same time, many distinctive claims of AI as Normal Technology have held up. In particular, we think recent incidents support our continuity hypothesis — the behavior of "rogue" agents became apparent and widely publicized while they are still incompetent at causing serious harm or hiding their traces. The societal reaction to even the relatively small harms from these incidents has been fierce (and the safety community deserves credit for keeping up pressure on companies). Whether this translates into meaningful changes in companies’ behavior remains an open question, and a test of the usefulness of the AINT framework. 9) In short, we’ve tried to synthesize the AI safety and cybersecurity communities' views into a coherent plan of action: hold companies responsible, invest in control, and strengthen defenses against specific risks.
- Sep 15, 2026
The Kennedy Center is in a virtual state of collapse, and has been for many years. A large piece of concrete and steel just dropped down, in a thud, from the ceiling of a heavily trafficked main hallway. If the Building were open, innocent people would have been killed. A security guard had just passed the area, one minute prior to this ceiling collapse. He was, therefore, 60 seconds away from certain death. The Judge has made us keep it open even though there are no performances, and no people that would have the Courage to even go in. The Board of The Kennedy Center has strongly voted to save it, and they know I’m the only one who can do so, because I have the ability to raise the money, and the ability to construct — that few others have. I also have the strength and power of the Presidency, which will be needed do what must be done, and give it a strong shot at Greatness again! Remember, The Kennedy Center was losing Hundreds of Millions of Dollars when I took over. It was failing badly! It had nothing to do with me, I am only there to help. I just got there to reveal the facts, but especially those concerning Building Safety. A very hostile and conflicted Judge (What else is new?) seems like he won’t let that happen, in which case, unfortunately, the Building is destined to doom. Isn’t that too bad? We have already wasted more than 6 months “playing around” in Court. Time is our Enemy! The Board, comprised of some of the most prominent and respected people in our Nation, is meeting again today. It will be interesting to see what happens! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP ( TS: Sep 15 2026, 11:49 AM ET )
- Sep 16, 2026
Alabama Sen. Katie Britt praised President Trump’s tariffs, but she also privately sought exemptions for manufacturers in her state. https://t.co/id5fCHioru via @WSJopinion
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 292 interactions against 69K followers, an engagement rate of 0.425%. Measured over 18 original posts, its engagement rate beats 73% of 15,519 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 35K times each, and 0.841% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 50.1% 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, though only 17% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 22:00 UTC, and Tuesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 18 posts sampled, 61% carry an image or video, 11% are part of a thread and 11% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 8.0K interactions, about 27x its own typical post.
- What is Robert Graham's engagement rate on X?
- Robert Graham (@robertgraham) has an engagement rate of 0.425%, based on the median interactions across 18 original posts from the last 30 days against 69,289 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.425%, Robert Graham sits above the 50th percentile of the 156,839 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 @robertgraham have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 73% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (15,519 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 @robertgraham post?
- Most posts go out around 22:00 UTC, and Tuesday is its busiest day, at roughly 2.5 posts per day across the measured window.