Calling it "{arbitrary brand} revolution", when pretty much every messaging platform is indistinguishable feels crass and tacky. The brand isn't the one in the trenches making the sacrifices.
It could be called a smart phone revolution instead. A revolution of the people.
Also, I installed Telegram for the explicit purpose of following the events in Belarus directly from sources. By doing that I noticed that apparently the local press in my country have done the same, as it seemed that most of the updates in online media have come from the same Telegram channels. So, it has also served the role of information dissemination beyond the borders of Belarus at a time when journalists working there were harassed and sometimes imprisoned.
I also read that most of the VPNs wouldn't work, with the exception of psiphon.
You might be thinking of FireChat.
- location based chats, you see people around and can start a local group. So you can easily get in contact with other protestors around you.
- Broadcasting channels
- Not by default, but you can creat encrypted chats, with auto destruction
- Since a few days, encrypted video calls
- Not owned by Facebook
"nine out of ten Egyptians and Tunisians responded to a poll that they used Facebook to organise protests and spread awareness" [1]
"During the Arab Spring the number of users of social networks, especially Facebook, rose dramatically in most Arab countries, particularly in those where political uprising took place, with the exception of Libya, which at the time had low Internet access preventing people from doing so" [1]
As far as I'm aware Facebook is actually owned by Facebook.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spri...
And you have a huge difference between Facebook 2010 and 2020.
Keyword "public". It is the same useful for protests as it was then.
Careful though, since video calls are currently in alpha.
Reportedly, Telegram has kept working when other apps did not.
That makes it a "telegram revolution".