4 ms·
This thread seems to be generating a great deal of redundancy. If you're here to ask, "How come they were able to ban channels when Telegram is supposed to be
by fabulist 11y ago
This thread seems to be generating a great deal of redundancy.
If you're here to ask, "How come they were able to ban channels when Telegram is supposed to be private?", as sk4kerto mentioned channels are a feature for broadcasting information to the public.
If you're wondering how Telegram works, here is their documentation.
https://core.telegram.org/mtproto https://core.telegram.org/mtproto
- sneak 11y agoor just defer to the experts https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/582249709286326272 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/58224970928632627... https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/582916365750669312 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/58291636575066931... https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/582245625103826944 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/58224562510382694...
- guelo 11y agoThat's not expert discussion, that's just low infrmation ranting. It is more informative to note that the most wanted terrorists in the world were using it to communicate publicly with impunity.
- tptacek 11y agoDo you really want to stick up for Telegram's cryptography? That's essentially what you're doing by rebutting that comment. There are much better links he could have provided, I agree, but Matthew Green is not a low-information ranter.
- fabulist 11y agoIt's hard to tell the difference between "using with impunity" and "totally being monitored by organizations who don't wish to tip their hand." Neither is particularly more speculative than the other. Edit: ...for a service as new and questionable as Telegram.