There's a disconnect between critiques of Telegram and its practical use | Hacker News Reader

There's a disconnect between critiques of Telegram and its practical use

twitter.com

27 pointskome7 comments

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1474067549574688768.html

> For the folks writing about this space, my request is that when you write "encrypted messenger," it should at minimum mean an app where all messages are e2ee by default

sorry, I don't want to change my definition of "encrypted" to satisfy some people on the internet. Even if it's for a good cause

Is Facebook Messenger an "encrypted" messenger to you?

I've never used Facebook, so I don't know. If it's about sending messages via facebook website, I would call it an encrypted way of communication. Because https traffic is encrypted.

I've posted my definition of "encrypted" because someone asked, check the whole thread if you are interested

May I ask what is your definition of "encrypted"?

my definition of encrypted is: something that is not in clear text and can be transformed to clear text with knowledge of algorithm and secret key.

I would call telegram "encrypted messenger" because its network traffic is encrypted -- I cannot understand what's inside of it, but anyone with the knowledge of the algorithm and the key can.

At this point it seems to me that their „claim“ to be a secure and honest encrypted messenger has hurt them more than benefitted. Techies blast their custom „encryption“ and cry about the „not secure by default“ chats. The media only mentions Telegram in the same phrase as terrorism and how Telegram enables terrorists to communicate securely.

It‘s an amazing platform though and I wouldn‘t want to go back to something more basic. Once you „get“ the bots, broadcast channels, etc. it‘s really amazing. Signal is perfectly secure and great but it feels like going back to pen and paper after using email. I see it as a social platform akin to WeChat or Discord and am perfectly happy that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com