4 ms·

I use telegram for some group chats, but I'm not sure why tech-savvy people would like it so much – messages are not end-to-end encrypted which makes it an infe

by mpeg 2y ago

I use telegram for some group chats, but I'm not sure why tech-savvy people would like it so much – messages are not end-to-end encrypted which makes it an inferior choice compared to even whatsapp

firesteelrain 2y ago
I prefer Signal and it provides encryption.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  Signal has the better protocol and the better organisation behind it, but inferior apps and UX. It's unfortunate, really.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    Apps? I just use it for messaging. I haven’t noticed any major UX issues but I use it for one thing only
    - yunohn 2y ago
      Yes, the messaging apps. They suck big-time. By far the worst communication app I’ve ever used. So many bugs… Telegram is indeed the best like others are saying, and WhatsApp is a distant second.
      - croes 2y ago
        Can you give an example? Never had any problem with Signal.
        sunnybeetroot 2y ago
        On iOS, if you turn off your Internet connection and receive a message, you won’t get a notification when you restore your connection. This problem doesn’t exist with WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram. Quite strange.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      On my Signal app screen, I have Chats, Calls and Stories. I could probably do without Stories. Periodically it prompts me for my PIN. Other than that it just works
      - kaszanka 2y ago
        You can actually turn off Stories in the settings, then the option also disappears from the bottom bar.
    - jeroenhd 2y ago
      Signal for mobile and Signal for desktop are different apps with different code bases. Neither is as good as Telegram's, in my opinion. Signal is fine for messaging. Not bad, not amazing. I'd have a much easier time convincing people to switch to Signal if it would've had a client as good as Telegram's, especially for the desktop application. That said, Telegram has been adding more and more annoying premium features that distract and annoy.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        Thanks I only use mobile so now I understand
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
NayamAmarshe 2y ago
> which makes it an inferior choice compared to even whatsapp I'd rather have a good privacy policy with a good enough server-side encryption than some closed-source implementation of E2EE, that we can never audit. WhatsApp actually disallows you from reverse-engineering the app and looking into the algorithm. That begs the question, what percentage of E2EE is it really? 20%? 50%? 100%? Because there's still no way to confirm their claims of E2EE. All we have is a company with a really good track record in lying publicly, telling you that it's safe. Looking at WhatsApp's privacy policy, I really wonder why people even support it compared to Telegram: https://privacyspy.org/product/whatsapp/ https://privacyspy.org/product/whatsapp/ https://privacyspy.org/product/telegram/ https://privacyspy.org/product/telegram/
- mpeg 2y ago
  This is no longer true, whatsapp have taken steps [0] to make their e2ee auditable and honestly I disagree with the idea that no e2ee is better than closed source e2ee. I'm not sure why you would trust a privacy policy more than you would trust encryption, with a court order Telegram would provide your chats to law enforcement, while Whatsapp would not be able to. [0]: https://engineering.fb.com/2023/04/13/security/whatsapp-key-transparency/ https://engineering.fb.com/2023/04/13/security/whatsapp-key-...
  - NayamAmarshe 2y ago
    > to make their e2ee auditable This is not the algorithm being audited, it's the key. Telegram's complete algorithm is auditable, including the open source client apps. Server code is always unverifiable, so let's not bring that up. Secondly, WhatsApp channels and large groups (copied from Telegram) are not encrypted in any way (cmiw), as opposed to Telegram's MTProto 2.0 Cloud encryption. The app is completely closed-source even with all their claims of privacy and its TnC even discourages you from reverse-engineering it.
    - p2detar 2y ago
      WhatsApp Communities are indeed E2E encrypted. About channels, why would you want a channel to be encrypted when you are just a follower and cannot communicate back? In fact WhatsApp's guidelines explicitly state the following: > Channel updates should be used to share information with followers and viewers, not as a way for admins to communicate back and forth. https://faq.whatsapp.com/671443411431514/ https://faq.whatsapp.com/671443411431514/
usrnm 2y ago
Same reson people choose macbooks for work over running Linux, it's just a nicer product
- yehat 2y ago
  Where's windows than?
  - cdelsolar 2y ago
    Not used in serious contexts
4bpp 2y ago
For one, it's the only major messenger that has an actually lightweight, well-written and full-featured desktop client rather than yet another boxed-up web browser. I might be more enthusiastic about using the alternatives if I could use the Telegram client.
- whatsuphotdog 2y ago
  It's very bizarre to see all these comments downplaying this, or implying the lack of E2EE by default somehow makes it less attractive to the average user than something like Signal. Most people care about usability and interconnectivity first and foremost because the majority of their messaging activities are not so sensitive that they feel the need to sacrifice those things for mandatory E2EE. Call that shortsighted if you like, but it's far more common than this "encryption or bust" mindset around here. If signal or some messaging platform could find a way to be E2EE capable all the time, with all the same usability and design as telegram, without unnecessary restrictions on users, and without it being a completely walled off garden from which your data can never be self-extracted, it would win this argument. Same goes for things like Tutanota and a lot of these other data prisons that are cropping up which create privacy through taking away user agency. Until then users will pick what they want for their own needs. Telegram met those needs for many.
  - walterbell 2y ago
    > the same usability and design as telegram From the recent Tucker Carlson interview of Pavel Durov, Telegram has: - 1 PM (Durov) - 1 owner (Durov) - 30 developers - 0 HR, they hire contest.com winners https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41343845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41343845
    - limit499karma 2y ago
      a very impressive guy. too bad he didn't name the oss libraries.
      - 2y ago
whatsuphotdog 2y ago
Why are you assuming tech savy people care primarily about end-to-end encryption?
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Maybe because tech-savvy people understand the need and importance of encryption? There's of course always the exceptions that say they don't care about privacy, but that is fortunately usually a small group, at least in the tech-savvy world.
  - maqp 2y ago
    Both tech savvies and laypeople expect private/encrypted messaging app to provide the basic property that only the sender and the intended recipients can read it. This is achieved with end-to-end encryption. Techies know the term, and can understand it's not present. Non-tech people don't understand, and just rely on word-of-mouth that it's super secure, when it's not.
guigar 2y ago
I think it is because Telegram is a communications platform, not just another chat app. For example, it has good APIs to build apps on top of it.
whimsicalism 2y ago
because telegram just works really well tbh. it is lightweight, pretty much never goes down, has reasonable features.
_trampeltier 2y ago
At least on the beginning, when I looked into it, it had a very simple and well documented API. I guess it was the only messenger you could send a message with one line of code (of course not e2e encrypted). So it's very simple to send you a message from your home project.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Hot take: E2EE is overrated! Almost all conversations that most people have are benign. I used telegram to follow journalists (essentially as a twitter replacement), how would E2EE benefit my use case?
- maqp 2y ago
  Yeah no shit. But sharing cute cat pics deserve human right to privacy. Also, when everything is E2EE, that reduces the metadata about when you say something private. You don't want your opt-in encryption to reveal metadata about how close you are to someone.
forinti 2y ago
I prefer it because of the bot API.
golergka 2y ago
WhatsApp doesn't save my history. And secret services of governments of certain counties are not a realistic adversary that I'm trying to defend myself against. The usual scammers which are going to steal my identity are not the people Durov will sell admin access to his server to.

by mpeg 2y ago

I use telegram for some group chats, but I'm not sure why tech-savvy people would like it so much – messages are not end-to-end encrypted which makes it an inferior choice compared to even whatsapp

firesteelrain 2y ago

I prefer Signal and it provides encryption.

jeroenhd 2y ago
Signal has the better protocol and the better organisation behind it, but inferior apps and UX. It's unfortunate, really.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Apps? I just use it for messaging. I haven’t noticed any major UX issues but I use it for one thing only
  - yunohn 2y ago
    Yes, the messaging apps. They suck big-time. By far the worst communication app I’ve ever used. So many bugs… Telegram is indeed the best like others are saying, and WhatsApp is a distant second.
    - croes 2y ago
      Can you give an example? Never had any problem with Signal.
      - sunnybeetroot 2y ago
        On iOS, if you turn off your Internet connection and receive a message, you won’t get a notification when you restore your connection. This problem doesn’t exist with WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram. Quite strange.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    On my Signal app screen, I have Chats, Calls and Stories. I could probably do without Stories. Periodically it prompts me for my PIN. Other than that it just works
    - kaszanka 2y ago
      You can actually turn off Stories in the settings, then the option also disappears from the bottom bar.
  - jeroenhd 2y ago
    Signal for mobile and Signal for desktop are different apps with different code bases. Neither is as good as Telegram's, in my opinion. Signal is fine for messaging. Not bad, not amazing. I'd have a much easier time convincing people to switch to Signal if it would've had a client as good as Telegram's, especially for the desktop application. That said, Telegram has been adding more and more annoying premium features that distract and annoy.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      Thanks I only use mobile so now I understand
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

NayamAmarshe 2y ago

> which makes it an inferior choice compared to even whatsapp I'd rather have a good privacy policy with a good enough server-side encryption than some closed-source implementation of E2EE, that we can never audit. WhatsApp actually disallows you from reverse-engineering the app and looking into the algorithm. That begs the question, what percentage of E2EE is it really? 20%? 50%? 100%? Because there's still no way to confirm their claims of E2EE. All we have is a company with a really good track record in lying publicly, telling you that it's safe. Looking at WhatsApp's privacy policy, I really wonder why people even support it compared to Telegram: https://privacyspy.org/product/whatsapp/ https://privacyspy.org/product/whatsapp/ https://privacyspy.org/product/telegram/ https://privacyspy.org/product/telegram/

mpeg 2y ago
This is no longer true, whatsapp have taken steps [0] to make their e2ee auditable and honestly I disagree with the idea that no e2ee is better than closed source e2ee. I'm not sure why you would trust a privacy policy more than you would trust encryption, with a court order Telegram would provide your chats to law enforcement, while Whatsapp would not be able to. [0]: https://engineering.fb.com/2023/04/13/security/whatsapp-key-transparency/ https://engineering.fb.com/2023/04/13/security/whatsapp-key-...
- NayamAmarshe 2y ago
  > to make their e2ee auditable This is not the algorithm being audited, it's the key. Telegram's complete algorithm is auditable, including the open source client apps. Server code is always unverifiable, so let's not bring that up. Secondly, WhatsApp channels and large groups (copied from Telegram) are not encrypted in any way (cmiw), as opposed to Telegram's MTProto 2.0 Cloud encryption. The app is completely closed-source even with all their claims of privacy and its TnC even discourages you from reverse-engineering it.
  - p2detar 2y ago
    WhatsApp Communities are indeed E2E encrypted. About channels, why would you want a channel to be encrypted when you are just a follower and cannot communicate back? In fact WhatsApp's guidelines explicitly state the following: > Channel updates should be used to share information with followers and viewers, not as a way for admins to communicate back and forth. https://faq.whatsapp.com/671443411431514/ https://faq.whatsapp.com/671443411431514/

usrnm 2y ago

Same reson people choose macbooks for work over running Linux, it's just a nicer product

yehat 2y ago
Where's windows than?
- cdelsolar 2y ago
  Not used in serious contexts

4bpp 2y ago

For one, it's the only major messenger that has an actually lightweight, well-written and full-featured desktop client rather than yet another boxed-up web browser. I might be more enthusiastic about using the alternatives if I could use the Telegram client.

whatsuphotdog 2y ago
It's very bizarre to see all these comments downplaying this, or implying the lack of E2EE by default somehow makes it less attractive to the average user than something like Signal. Most people care about usability and interconnectivity first and foremost because the majority of their messaging activities are not so sensitive that they feel the need to sacrifice those things for mandatory E2EE. Call that shortsighted if you like, but it's far more common than this "encryption or bust" mindset around here. If signal or some messaging platform could find a way to be E2EE capable all the time, with all the same usability and design as telegram, without unnecessary restrictions on users, and without it being a completely walled off garden from which your data can never be self-extracted, it would win this argument. Same goes for things like Tutanota and a lot of these other data prisons that are cropping up which create privacy through taking away user agency. Until then users will pick what they want for their own needs. Telegram met those needs for many.
- walterbell 2y ago
  > the same usability and design as telegram From the recent Tucker Carlson interview of Pavel Durov, Telegram has: - 1 PM (Durov) - 1 owner (Durov) - 30 developers - 0 HR, they hire contest.com winners https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41343845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41343845
  - limit499karma 2y ago
    a very impressive guy. too bad he didn't name the oss libraries.
    - 2y ago

whatsuphotdog 2y ago

Why are you assuming tech savy people care primarily about end-to-end encryption?

gitaarik 2y ago
Maybe because tech-savvy people understand the need and importance of encryption? There's of course always the exceptions that say they don't care about privacy, but that is fortunately usually a small group, at least in the tech-savvy world.
- maqp 2y ago
  Both tech savvies and laypeople expect private/encrypted messaging app to provide the basic property that only the sender and the intended recipients can read it. This is achieved with end-to-end encryption. Techies know the term, and can understand it's not present. Non-tech people don't understand, and just rely on word-of-mouth that it's super secure, when it's not.

guigar 2y ago

I think it is because Telegram is a communications platform, not just another chat app. For example, it has good APIs to build apps on top of it.

whimsicalism 2y ago

because telegram just works really well tbh. it is lightweight, pretty much never goes down, has reasonable features.

_trampeltier 2y ago

At least on the beginning, when I looked into it, it had a very simple and well documented API. I guess it was the only messenger you could send a message with one line of code (of course not e2e encrypted). So it's very simple to send you a message from your home project.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

Hot take: E2EE is overrated! Almost all conversations that most people have are benign. I used telegram to follow journalists (essentially as a twitter replacement), how would E2EE benefit my use case?

maqp 2y ago
Yeah no shit. But sharing cute cat pics deserve human right to privacy. Also, when everything is E2EE, that reduces the metadata about when you say something private. You don't want your opt-in encryption to reveal metadata about how close you are to someone.

forinti 2y ago

I prefer it because of the bot API.

golergka 2y ago

WhatsApp doesn't save my history. And secret services of governments of certain counties are not a realistic adversary that I'm trying to defend myself against. The usual scammers which are going to steal my identity are not the people Durov will sell admin access to his server to.