4 ms·

It's my understanding that one reason people like Telegram is unlike Signal, you can use a username and hide your phone number. (Please correct me if this is in

It's my understanding that one reason people like Telegram is unlike Signal, you can use a username and hide your phone number. (Please correct me if this is incorrect, I don't know anyone who uses it so I stick to Signal) Signal is the gold standard for confidentiality, but forcing folks to disclose a phone number as a primary identifier has privacy issues.

333c 7y ago
I use both telegram and signal and I find that the general user experience (syncing chats across devices, bots, rich media types) is better in telegram, at the expense of privacy.
codedokode 7y ago
Telegram also has native, non-Electron apps, for many platforms, could it be an advantage? It also has convenient public chats and "channels" (microblogs). It has support for proxy servers, allows sharing proxy servers and has traffic obfuscation which Signal (I assume) doesn't have. But for me Telegram and Signal are equally insecure because they don't allow anonymous accounts without a phone number. Using phone number for authentication is insecure because it is very easy to intercept SMS messages, especially if you are a telecom or the government. You better avoid using such messengers and not support them unless you want to provide your ID in future for registration on any website.
- rmsaksida 7y ago
  Telegram supports two-step verification with a password. As long as you have that enabled, your account can't be hacked with SMS interception.
- kitsunesoba 7y ago
  The native apps certainly help… Signal’s desktop app is pure afterthought and it shows. The other thing is that Telegram is just far more feature rich. It feels like what you’d like expect from a modern messaging app. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this all, though, is that third party devs can’t make their own Signal clients to try to improve the situation. If you want to use Signal, you have to take it with all of its warts, and that’s a hard sell.

333c 7y ago

I use both telegram and signal and I find that the general user experience (syncing chats across devices, bots, rich media types) is better in telegram, at the expense of privacy.

codedokode 7y ago

Telegram also has native, non-Electron apps, for many platforms, could it be an advantage? It also has convenient public chats and "channels" (microblogs). It has support for proxy servers, allows sharing proxy servers and has traffic obfuscation which Signal (I assume) doesn't have. But for me Telegram and Signal are equally insecure because they don't allow anonymous accounts without a phone number. Using phone number for authentication is insecure because it is very easy to intercept SMS messages, especially if you are a telecom or the government. You better avoid using such messengers and not support them unless you want to provide your ID in future for registration on any website.

rmsaksida 7y ago
Telegram supports two-step verification with a password. As long as you have that enabled, your account can't be hacked with SMS interception.
kitsunesoba 7y ago
The native apps certainly help… Signal’s desktop app is pure afterthought and it shows. The other thing is that Telegram is just far more feature rich. It feels like what you’d like expect from a modern messaging app. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this all, though, is that third party devs can’t make their own Signal clients to try to improve the situation. If you want to use Signal, you have to take it with all of its warts, and that’s a hard sell.