Michael Shellenberger engagement report
@shellenberger - 1.4M followers on X
Measured over 33 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 24, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 5.4K interactions against 1.4M followers, an engagement rate of 0.382%. Measured over 33 original posts, its engagement rate beats 89% 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 168K times each, and 3.21% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 11.9% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 7.8 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 18:00 UTC, and Saturday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 33 posts sampled, 73% carry an image or video, 52% are part of a thread and 27% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 103K interactions, about 18x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #17octobre, #auspol, #disinfo2026.
Measured over 33 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 24, 2026. Recurring tags: #17octobre, #auspol, #disinfo2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
Michael Shellenberger's engagement rate beats 89% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 10 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 80% 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 0.382%, Michael Shellenberger sits above the 50th percentile of the 204,694 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the above the median band, which runs 0.143% to 0.677%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.024% |
| 50th percentile | 0.143% |
| 75th percentile | 0.677% |
| 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 18:00 UTC, and Saturday 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 | 73% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 27% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 73% 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.
- 27% 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 309 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
- Apr 3, 202418x their median
TWITTER FILES - BRAZIL Brazil is engaged in a sweeping crackdown on free speech led by a Supreme Court justice named Alexandre de Moraes. De Moraes has thrown people in jail without trial for things they posted on social media. He has demanded the removal of users from social media platforms. And he has required the censorship of specific posts, without giving users any right of appeal or even the right to see the evidence presented against them. Now, Twitter Files, released here for the first time, reveal that de Moraes and the Superior Electoral Court he controls engaged in a clear attempt to undermine democracy in Brazil. They: — illegally demanded that Twitter reveal personal details about Twitter users who used hashtags he did not like; — demanded access to Twitter’s internal data, in violation of Twitter policy; — sought to censor, unilaterally, Twitter posts by sitting members of Brazil’s Congress; — sought to weaponize Twitter’s content moderation policies against supporters of then-president @jairbolsonaro The Files show: the origins of the Brazilian judiciary’s demand for sweeping censorship powers; the court’s use of censorship for anti-democratic election interference; and the birth of the Censorship Industrial Complex in Brazil. TWITTER FILES - BRAZIL was written by @david_agape_ @elivieira & @shellenberger We presented these findings to de Moraes, to the Supreme Court (STF), and to the High Electoral Court (TSE). None responded. Let’s get into it...
- Apr 1, 202512x their median
BREAKING: FBI Imposed “Gag Order” About Hunter Biden Laptop After Employee Accidentally Confirmed Its Authenticity To Twitter Newly released internal FBI chat messages reveal senior bureau officials actively shutting down discussion of the laptop’s credibility days before the 2020 Presidential election This is a CatherineHerridgeReports @C__Herridge / Public @Shellenberger Joint Investigation An FBI official admitted to House investigators that an FBI employee had inadvertently confirmed the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop to Twitter on a conference call the morning of October 14, 2020, the day the New York Post published a story about it. “I recall that when the question came up, an intelligence analyst assigned to the Criminal Investigative Division said something to the effect of, ‘Yes, the laptop is real’,” the then Russia unit chief testified in a closed door transcribed interview. “I believe it was an (Office of General Counsel) attorney assigned to the (Foreign Influence Task Force) stepped in and said, ‘We will not comment further on this topic.’” For the first time, and with a change of administration, the FBI has now turned over to GOP House investigators the internal chat messages that show Bureau leadership actively silenced its employees. The FBI, which had a special task force to counter foreign election interference, could have set the record straight by confirming the laptop was real and the subject of an ongoing criminal probe. Instead, FBI leadership allowed the false narrative about the laptop to gain momentum. The FBI provided the chat messages to congressional investigators with heavy redactions. Some of the redactions on the chats are marked “OGC AGC,” which appears to mean that they were made by the FBI’s Office of General Counsel and Associate General Counsel. An individual whose name is blacked out, tells Elvis M. Chan, the San Francisco-based FBI special agent tasked with interacting with social media companies, there was a “gag order” on discussion of Hunter Biden’s laptop. In a separate exchange, Chan is told “official response no commen(t).” In the chat, the FBI officials showed awareness that the laptop may have contained evidence of criminal activity. Asked Chan, “actually what kind of case is the laptop thing? corruption? campaign financing?” Another FBI employee responds, “CLOSE HOLD —” after which the response is redacted. To which Chan responds, “oh crap” appearing to underscore the serious nature of the probe, which included felony tax charges. Chan adds, “ok. It ends here”. In the same conversation, Chan is asked if “Anyone discussing that NYPost article on the Biden’s?” Chan responds, “yes we are. c d confirmed an active investigation. No further comment.” “C D” is likely shorthand for the FBI’s Criminal Division. Said another FBI employee, whose name was redacted by the Bureau, “please do not discuss biden matter.” We asked for a response from the bureau and the FBI employees identified in the chat messages. An FBI spokesman declined to comment. We go in-depth on the chat messages for subscribers!
- Aug 4, 202610x their median
Journalists are aggressively defending Fauci, despite his diaries showing that he repeatedly lied to the public. The reason is that, after years of dehumanizing Covid dissidents based on his lies, media elites can’t cope with the enormity of their failure. By @GalexyBrane https://t.co/pvjqzQd2X2
- Oct 13, 20269.2x their median
Well, that was wild. I'm at the Australian Parliament and just left a meeting with two staffers for the governing party. They told us that the government needed more power to censor things like the upcoming US execution of Nidal Hasan. When I asked why they needed to censor that video, one said it was to prevent copycat killings. Copycat killings by governments? I asked. Er, no, they said. Copycat killings like of a backpacker, several decades ago. So, under that logic, I pointed out, the government should censor things like last year's Bondi massacre, where two Muslims killed 15 people, no? Well, that was news, they said. Didn't they realize their bill would allow the government to censor news? They didn't seem to know, or care. They also admitted that they did not know that the bill would allow the government to create and operate an unlimited number of fake social media accounts to attack its political enemies and spread disinformation. Having presented them with information they had never heard about a bill they had clearly not read, they emphasized to us, strenuously, that they were moving forward with the bill. So there you have it. The government wants the power to arbitrarily censor scenes of violent crime, or violence, for any reason. And it wants the power to use an unlimited number of fake accounts to wage offensive disinformational warfare against the Australian people. Given that the Bondi massacre last year increased public opposition to mass migration, and support for the populist One Nation Party, it seems obvious that the government wants to censor such events in order to protect its political power. It's quite telling how obediently governing party members insist such a law is needed without even knowing what's in it.
- Jun 5, 20247.8x their median
Rep. Dan Goldman claimed that Hunter Biden’s laptop was manipulated by Rudy Giuliani and Russia. Today in Federal court, The FBI witness tells Hunter Biden's jury that NO TAMPERING occurred with his laptop. Share this video far and wide. https://t.co/8WqFBau5MF
- Oct 17, 20268.1x their median
🔴🇫🇷🔥 ALERTE INFO | Le clocher de la mairie de Limoges s’est effondré. https://t.co/gVB9oUXoB1
- Aug 19, 20265.9x their median
I just dropped my son off at @UCBerkeley housing and as we were approaching we saw this behind his apartments. Shame on @CityofBerkeley @CityofAlbanyCA @UCBerkeleyNews https://t.co/sxyhkez5l4
- Sep 2, 20265.7x their median
Now that satellite images prove that failing bedrock, not a glacier, caused the flooding in Nepal, journalists are blaming melting permafrost. But there’s no evidence for that, either. In truth, scientists and journalists have been lying for decades about climate change and ice. https://t.co/FtVdWbNgDl
- Oct 14, 20265.5x their median
13000 bot accounts were purged from @X today targeting US political conversation. 👏🏻 Keep it up. Purge the bots!
- Jan 30, 20244.7x their median
Protesting German farmers are dangerously far-right, say the media. But they're not. Most Germans share their concerns over energy prices and immigration. And, now, a new investigation finds government, Soros, and Facebook money behind the anti-farmer disinformation and attacks. https://t.co/8dlHTmob1q
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 5.4K interactions against 1.4M followers, an engagement rate of 0.382%. Measured over 33 original posts, its engagement rate beats 89% 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 168K times each, and 3.21% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 11.9% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 7.8 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 18:00 UTC, and Saturday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 33 posts sampled, 73% carry an image or video, 52% are part of a thread and 27% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 103K interactions, about 18x its own typical post. Recurring topics include #17octobre, #auspol, #disinfo2026.
- What is Michael Shellenberger's engagement rate on X?
- Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) has an engagement rate of 0.382%, based on the median interactions across 33 original posts from the last 30 days against 1,404,628 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.382%, Michael Shellenberger sits above the 50th percentile of the 204,694 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 @shellenberger have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 89% 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 @shellenberger post?
- Most posts go out around 18:00 UTC, and Saturday is its busiest day, at roughly 7.83 posts per day across the measured window.