3 ms·

Misleading article. Telegram didn't partner with Tencent, TON did, and they are not related.

by tail_exchange 3y ago

duskwuff 3y ago
> they are not related Are we sure about that? The corporate structure of Telegram is fairly opaque.
- tail_exchange 3y ago
  It's fine to have your suspicious, but if a media outlet is going to affirm this, I'd expect evidence that is a bit more concrete and falsifiable.
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    There's no doubt whatsoever that TON was, at one point, an official Telegram project. There's posts about it on their blog [1] and sections of their Terms of Service which describe it a feature "incorporated into the Telegram Messenger application" [2]. There are also a number of features being offered by TON with explicit support from Telegram itself, e.g. purchasing Telegram Premium with TON [3], "collectible" Telegram usernames [4][5], "anonymous numbers" for Telegram accounts [6][7], etc. Even if TON isn't legally the same entity as Telegram, they're hand-in-glove with each other. [1]: https://telegram.org/blog/ton-gram-notice https://telegram.org/blog/ton-gram-notice [2]: https://telegram.org/tos/wallet https://telegram.org/tos/wallet [3]: https://fragment.com/premium https://fragment.com/premium (Fragment is a TON marketplace; it isn't available in the US for reasons) [4]: https://telegram.org/blog/topics-in-groups-collectible-usernames https://telegram.org/blog/topics-in-groups-collectible-usern... [5]: https://ton.diamonds/collection/telegram-usernames https://ton.diamonds/collection/telegram-usernames [6]: https://telegram.org/blog/ultimate-privacy-topics-2-0 https://telegram.org/blog/ultimate-privacy-topics-2-0 [7]: https://ton.diamonds/collection/anonymous-telegram-numbers https://ton.diamonds/collection/anonymous-telegram-numbers
    - tail_exchange 3y ago
      I know that, but Telegram pulled out of the project after their legal battle with the SEC. As I said, it's fine if you have suspicions that they are still tied, but unless there is falsifiable, this is indiscernible from a journalist not understand what they are publishing. Given the state of tech journalism nowadays, that's my bet.
      - duskwuff 3y ago
        > I know that, but Telegram pulled out of the project after their legal battle with the SEC. They've tried to legally distance themselves from the project, but they haven't "pulled out". Telegram has gone well out of their way to develop and release new features which rely on TON / Fragment, like the "collectible usernames" feature I mentioned, as recently as last year. This isn't something that TON could have developed on their own; it required support not only from the Telegram apps, servers, and API, but also administrative support from Telegram to seize some usernames from users and make them available to TON/Fragment for resale. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest is "falsifiable" here. These are all things which are visible to end users; anyone can verify them.

Misleading article. Telegram didn't partner with Tencent, TON did, and they are not related.

duskwuff 3y ago

> they are not related Are we sure about that? The corporate structure of Telegram is fairly opaque.

tail_exchange 3y ago
It's fine to have your suspicious, but if a media outlet is going to affirm this, I'd expect evidence that is a bit more concrete and falsifiable.
- duskwuff 3y ago
  There's no doubt whatsoever that TON was, at one point, an official Telegram project. There's posts about it on their blog [1] and sections of their Terms of Service which describe it a feature "incorporated into the Telegram Messenger application" [2]. There are also a number of features being offered by TON with explicit support from Telegram itself, e.g. purchasing Telegram Premium with TON [3], "collectible" Telegram usernames [4][5], "anonymous numbers" for Telegram accounts [6][7], etc. Even if TON isn't legally the same entity as Telegram, they're hand-in-glove with each other. [1]: https://telegram.org/blog/ton-gram-notice https://telegram.org/blog/ton-gram-notice [2]: https://telegram.org/tos/wallet https://telegram.org/tos/wallet [3]: https://fragment.com/premium https://fragment.com/premium (Fragment is a TON marketplace; it isn't available in the US for reasons) [4]: https://telegram.org/blog/topics-in-groups-collectible-usernames https://telegram.org/blog/topics-in-groups-collectible-usern... [5]: https://ton.diamonds/collection/telegram-usernames https://ton.diamonds/collection/telegram-usernames [6]: https://telegram.org/blog/ultimate-privacy-topics-2-0 https://telegram.org/blog/ultimate-privacy-topics-2-0 [7]: https://ton.diamonds/collection/anonymous-telegram-numbers https://ton.diamonds/collection/anonymous-telegram-numbers
  - tail_exchange 3y ago
    I know that, but Telegram pulled out of the project after their legal battle with the SEC. As I said, it's fine if you have suspicions that they are still tied, but unless there is falsifiable, this is indiscernible from a journalist not understand what they are publishing. Given the state of tech journalism nowadays, that's my bet.
    - duskwuff 3y ago
      > I know that, but Telegram pulled out of the project after their legal battle with the SEC. They've tried to legally distance themselves from the project, but they haven't "pulled out". Telegram has gone well out of their way to develop and release new features which rely on TON / Fragment, like the "collectible usernames" feature I mentioned, as recently as last year. This isn't something that TON could have developed on their own; it required support not only from the Telegram apps, servers, and API, but also administrative support from Telegram to seize some usernames from users and make them available to TON/Fragment for resale. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest is "falsifiable" here. These are all things which are visible to end users; anyone can verify them.