But wouldn't it be in the interests of mass surveillance to herd people toward a chat option that isn't secure, or that the surveillants have a backdoor to? You

But wouldn't it be in the interests of mass surveillance to herd people toward a chat option that isn't secure, or that the surveillants have a backdoor to? You get two benefits: 1) chat people think is secret you can read, 2) people self-identify as selectors / targets by choosing to try to hide their communications, which you can actually read And if such PR herding worked, wouldn't the surveillants be prepared to pay for such efforts to make their job easier? So, what seems readily apparent is: Telegram takes state money, to offer an insecure option, while dissimulating to the world that it's: a) secure and b) turning down state money all the time. I know why this perspective isn't discussed in MSM. But I don't get why it's not discussed more here. It seems obvious to me. And personally IMHO, I think that's a good thing. Catch more criminals / terrorists.