3 ms·

Part of my point. I use WhatsApp and Signal, both using the Signal protocol, and experience no drawbacks whatsoever. In any case, for a messenger that advertis

Part of my point. I use WhatsApp and Signal, both using the Signal protocol, and experience no drawbacks whatsoever. In any case, for a messenger that advertises as secure, placing security after convenience seems pretty unusual.

Laarlf 5y ago
No drawbacks? Whatsapp requires your phone to be on and have Whatsapp running in the background if you want to use it over Whatsapp Web. Also the amount of Messages and Media that Telegram delivers to me would not fit on my Phone. Also let's not forget what a bad user experience Whatsapp offers apart from that. No bots, no channels, no hiding your phone number, no polls, limited permission system in groups,... i could continue for 20 minutes. But what is most infuriating to me is the backup system. It never works and you can only store it in iCloud/Google Drive.
- beermonster 5y ago
  See https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/14/22577594/whatsapp-multi-device-e2e-facebook https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/14/22577594/whatsapp-multi-d...
  - Laarlf 5y ago
    Still all the other points. And i am REALLY not sure if switching from a company that is known to try to not give data to governments to facebook, which makes it's money by analysing and selling data would make a lot of sense.
- strogonoff 5y ago
  Ah. I’m not using any of those features, I just use it for text messaging.
  - theshrike79 5y ago
    If you use Whatsapp as a SMS replacement, then you'll be fine. Many Telegram users use them for chats with large groups of people (hundreds or thousands) with native bot support being a huge thing. Whatsapp and Signal don't give many tools for handling groups that big, with Telegram you can actually manage it.
    - strogonoff 5y ago
      May I recommend Matrix, where group chats can actually be secure. By using Telegram for that you are basically leaking your group chats to a tiny company of unknown structure, as well as whomever they may be liable to be influenced by. If you only use Telegram for convenience and not security, then I guess my point upstream stands.
noxer 5y ago
No drawbacks over what? Over WhatsApp before they got e2e? Compared to telegram both of these are 5+ years behind. And have a different use case for a lot of users. Telegram being some kind of social media IM with a focus on public content and pubic messaging where the whole security thing is moot anyway. Personally >99.9% of my messages on telegram are public or at least accessible by strangers which I have zero reason to trust. There is no point encrypting such messages. They are similar to HN comments. I consider these messages public but still like the fact that neither google nor FB indexes or analyses them to send me spam/ads. >for a messenger that advertises as secure Its p much PR nonsense but to be fair it also come from the early days when telegram was the only IM with any e2e that had a relevant market share. I think its understandable that they will not remove "secure" from the description after all those years, it would raise some eyebrows if they would suddenly no longer say is secure ryt?

Laarlf 5y ago

No drawbacks? Whatsapp requires your phone to be on and have Whatsapp running in the background if you want to use it over Whatsapp Web. Also the amount of Messages and Media that Telegram delivers to me would not fit on my Phone. Also let's not forget what a bad user experience Whatsapp offers apart from that. No bots, no channels, no hiding your phone number, no polls, limited permission system in groups,... i could continue for 20 minutes. But what is most infuriating to me is the backup system. It never works and you can only store it in iCloud/Google Drive.

beermonster 5y ago
See https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/14/22577594/whatsapp-multi-device-e2e-facebook https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/14/22577594/whatsapp-multi-d...
- Laarlf 5y ago
  Still all the other points. And i am REALLY not sure if switching from a company that is known to try to not give data to governments to facebook, which makes it's money by analysing and selling data would make a lot of sense.
strogonoff 5y ago
Ah. I’m not using any of those features, I just use it for text messaging.
- theshrike79 5y ago
  If you use Whatsapp as a SMS replacement, then you'll be fine. Many Telegram users use them for chats with large groups of people (hundreds or thousands) with native bot support being a huge thing. Whatsapp and Signal don't give many tools for handling groups that big, with Telegram you can actually manage it.
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    May I recommend Matrix, where group chats can actually be secure. By using Telegram for that you are basically leaking your group chats to a tiny company of unknown structure, as well as whomever they may be liable to be influenced by. If you only use Telegram for convenience and not security, then I guess my point upstream stands.

noxer 5y ago

No drawbacks over what? Over WhatsApp before they got e2e? Compared to telegram both of these are 5+ years behind. And have a different use case for a lot of users. Telegram being some kind of social media IM with a focus on public content and pubic messaging where the whole security thing is moot anyway. Personally >99.9% of my messages on telegram are public or at least accessible by strangers which I have zero reason to trust. There is no point encrypting such messages. They are similar to HN comments. I consider these messages public but still like the fact that neither google nor FB indexes or analyses them to send me spam/ads. >for a messenger that advertises as secure Its p much PR nonsense but to be fair it also come from the early days when telegram was the only IM with any e2e that had a relevant market share. I think its understandable that they will not remove "secure" from the description after all those years, it would raise some eyebrows if they would suddenly no longer say is secure ryt?