[deleted] Channels wont shit temeselves unlike on matrix

Can't really compare a service that utilises a centralised server against a protocol that allows decentralised, cross-server communication between self-hosted instances, but ok.

media file delivery works without issues unlike with Signal which often fails to play videos and has very lacking file type support.

Probably something to do with Signal being actually E2EE (by default) and not Telegram, but people are free to correct me if this is caused/related to something else.

Telegram also has a very generous file size limit

I'm sure that has nothing to do with potential data collection whatsoever.

Telegram has no interest in data mining users, because they don't profit from it

Maybe, maybe not. They apparently do profit however from "Sponsored Messages", which is strange because any time I hear other organisations do similar ad-related things, it causes an uproar and accusations of data collection.

    • [deleted]

    • Edited

    Dumdum

    Can't really compare a service that utilises a centralised server against a protocol that allows decentralised, cross-server communication between self-hosted instances, but ok.

    How cant i compare them? They serve the same purpose and even the GrapheneOS team says matrix sucks for this.

    Probably something to do with Signal being actually E2EE (by default) and not Telegram.

    No it doesn't. You literally just recieve files and its on the client to handle them. Signal's client is far worse esepcially on desktop.

    I'm sure that has nothing to do with potential data collection whatsoever.

    You're right, it also doesn't have to do anything with that. You have no basis to claim otherwise. Take off the tinfoil hat. They have literally zero incentive to do what you say they'd do.

    Maybe, maybe not. They apparently do profit however from "Sponsored Messages", which is strange because any time I hear other organisations do similar ad-related things, it causes an uproar and accusations of data collection.

    This is a nothing burger. You can hear anything but you will have to prove that they collect data because of these ads. The client is open-source, you can see. Brave also shows ads and they are far less invasive than traditional ads. People complaining wont make them collect more data.

      [deleted]

      How cant i compare them? They serve the same purpose and even the GrapheneOS team says matrix sucks for this.

      ........ because they're fundamentally different????? And who cares if GOS team says matrix sucks? That's a pointless deflection, since I never said that matrix was good. Simply that they "can't be compared".

      No it doesn't. You literally just recieve files and its on the client to handle them. Signal's client is far worse esepcially on desktop.

      So, it has nothing to do with encryption which at least if memory serves me right, has caused a difficulty for the transfer of non-text data in a few different apps/services? Either way, I don't care much about this point so I'm not going to bother arguing this point.

      You're right, it also doesn't have to do anything with that. You have no basis to claim otherwise. Take off the tinfoil hat. They have literally zero incentive to do what you say they'd do.

      Indeed I have no basis to claim otherwise hence why I said potential. I did not claim that they actually are. So no, I will not "take off my tinfoil hat" because it was never on in the first place, unlike the other user's comment that was just removed. As for "zero incentive", doubt. Like any service, they need to cover costs of maintenance. Especially for one of their size. To say that a common method of funding such costs is "zero incentive" is frankly laughable.

      This is a nothing burger. You can hear anything but you will have to prove that they collect data because of these ads. The client is open-source, you can see. Brave also shows ads and they are far less invasive than traditional ads. People complaining wont make it collect more data.

      If its a "nothing burger", then so is any other attempt to distribute/handle "private ads". Sure, their client is open source but Firefox is open source and still they get attacked with accusations of data collection (as do other open source projects no doubt). Brave gets regularly accused of data collection as well from what I've seen in the past, and are generally distrusted by a number of people in privacy communities for stuff relating to ads/crypto.

      locked As far as the other companies facilitate the commission of grave offences, they can be investigated and the natural persons responsible for them can be arrested ... just like you and me if we carry messages for drugs dealers, give access to pedopornography or spread messages in favour of terrorism ... Just like you and me !

        • [deleted]

        • Edited

        Now as of telegram. Nothing suggests that they are doing anything with user data that would be for anything other than providing their service. They are not data mining users nor collecting excessive amounts of diagnostics. If you utilize "auto delete" its also gone from their servers, so people who deleted their chats have fewer things to worry about.

          @[deleted] You conduct towards other community members here is not acceptable. It's unproductive, and quite frankly, childish.

          It is very unfortunate that the community on the forum is proving time and time again that moderation should be stricter, not more lax, and that people are seemingly incapable of having mature and intelligent conversations about these topics without them not devolving into slapfights.

          I'm removing numerous posts that add nothing of value to the thread beyond said slapfights and will consider further action regarding the thread and individual accounts after that.

          [deleted] If you utilize "auto delete" its also gone from their servers, so people who deleted their chats have fewer things to worry about.

          Who else would you extend this good faith to, I wonder? It's a genuine question. It really feels like people who would otherwise be extremely suspicious and be calling other services "honeypots" etc. seem to have a soft spot for Telegram in particular. Marketing goes a long way, I suppose. The long and short of it is, if there are no technical guarantees for the messages being confidential, which there isn't for the vast, vast majority of Telegram users, assuming the best case scenario is likely not your best choice.

          Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that you specifically call other services honeypots or have similar opinions. It's mostly an observation after many days of discussing with people who had a fit when GrapheneOS explained that Telegram doesn't enable E2EE by default on X, Mastodon etc. Very weird behavior from some folks.

            matchboxbananasynergy It's mostly an observation after many days of discussing with people who had a fit when GrapheneOS explained that Telegram doesn't enable E2EE by default on X, Mastodon etc. Very weird behavior from some folks.

            It's generally difficult to have a healthy, constructive discussion when political influence, marketing influence and, worse when misinformation are involved. That's why these topics are banned from certain forums, along like sexuality and religion.

              • [deleted]

              • Edited

              matchboxbananasynergy Nothing. Telegram is a unique case and its not comparable to anything in this matter because nobody is insane enough to fund a project that WILL lose money without question. Applying the same logic as if this was a Facebook service is not appropriate.

              I've seen people defending Telegram on X and they argue very weak points. Im not on their side but i do know Telegram's general company culture and ethical values. Im not debating that they have access to user data on paper, but they are 100% not abusing what they have on them. The GrapheneOS account DIDNT misrepresent Telegram and slander it. I fully agree with what they say. I however heavily disagree with basically every bad faith argument that is based on "other companies did bad stuff in the past". Telegram didn't even need to be open source to be successful, but they did it anyway. It contradicts the conspiracy of them being a big evil shadow company focusing on data collection.

              Eirikr70 These are the same arguments that they have used in the past to try to weaken encryption, insert back doors, get Apple to scan their phones for CP, or to set backdoors You are basically saying that if encrypted messaging is used in the commission of a crime, then those responsible for facilitating that messaging if they are unable to help LEAs then could be arrested. That is B.S, and it's cowardly. You take away private messaging from criminals, and they will find other ways to communicate. You are just going to keep ordinary citizens from being able to keep any little bit of privacy they have left. criminals will resort to using ssh, or other homebrewed methods of using encryption. The government has been trying to get rid of encryption under the guise of protecting children, terrorism etc, and it has not worked. By the way, this is not my take, Apple ultimately came to this same conclusion, so did the EFF, and most security researchers.

                Xtreix I don't really see any political influence here. To me it's about censorship and privacy. It's not convenient for government officials to see these discussions, because they are usually on the loosing side.

                locked Thankfully, the government doesn't need to do anything to take away E2EE in Telegram's case, because Telegram made it so inconvenient to use E2EE that almost nobody uses it. I made a Telegram account fairly recently since we have a public Telegram group bridged to Discord, Matrix etc. for GrapheneOS. I was very surprised to learn that E2EE 1-1 chats do not work on a desktop device, but rather only when both people are on a phone. Furthermore, it seems that it can only be used when both parties are online, otherwise the secret chat disappears until both are.

                Your entire post about E2EE and how the government is trying to undermine it (and they are, and they should be stopped) demonstrates why E2EE is something worth using and fighting for, and Telegram made a very deliberate choice to exclude it from its model. That doesn't mean Telegram is a honeypot, it doesn't even necessarily mean it's malicious. Negligent, perhaps. And because anyone tries to say "but Telegram is more like social media! It doesn't need E2EE!", I'm sorry, but when I go to Telegram's front page and scroll down to "Why Telegram?" I'm met with a little duck that tells me Telegram is private and that's why I should use it. it tells me that it's "heavily encrypted". Why should I, as an average user, understand that means that Telegram has the technical means to retrieve conversations I thought private?

                I'm not going to get into politics or characterize Durov as trustworthy or untrustworthy, but it feels wrong to rely on someone's resolve to not compromise my data, rather than technical means.

                Not only did Telegram design their app in a way that maximizes "usability" (as if other messengers are unusable) in a way that makes it so conversations for the vast majority of users is not E2EE, not only did Telegram heavily market itself as "private and secure", not only did it continuously try to spread FUD about projects like Signal.

                People defending that the way Telegram decided to design its messenger makes sense is pretty wild. You can disagree with Durov being charged with whatever he's being charged, and still think Telegram has done a pretty bad job at protecting its users' data.

                locked As @matchboxbananasynergy said, it all depends on you (Telegram) knowing of the commission of a crime and not providing information to the authorities. With E2EE, the network knows nothing of the commission of the crime, so there is no reason to arrest the natural person responsible for the network. It then depends on the LEA to try and penetrate the system if they have substantial suspicion that it is used for criminal matters. Just the way your conversations might be listened to it you are suspect of terrorism ... Just like you and me ...

                I've been reading this thread (before and after some posts being removed by moderators). I just want to say that I'm truly frustrated (but mostly perplexed) by the number of posts from people on here that don't seem to grasp the inherent dangers of censorship by big brother and who naively don't understand how free speech is the bedrock of a free society...especially when the right to privacy and the right to free speech go hand in hand.

                Free society means being able to have a free exchange of thoughts and ideas. You can't speak your mind unless you feel safe to do so, especially when the world is filled with evil people that want to silence or "make disappear" those that disagree with them. Governments are not shy about putting people on lists.

                Privacy is one tool to make people feel safe enough to speak freely. That's why we say the right to privacy is a human right, just like how free speech is an "inalienable right."

                We speak about threat models a lot. And weirdly, the same people speaking about not trusting XYZ tech company or their government - who are recommending encrypted and open-source software to protect their speech and expression...simultaneously support authoritarian restrictions on speech and expression??

                It's also strange seeing many of the tired and debunked arguments ("objectionable" content, think of the children, terrorists, criminals, etc) from people on here when these arguments have already been understood to be poor or even fake excuses to conceal governments' desire to instill mass surveillance, issue uninterrupted government propaganda, and silence dissenters.

                It's very strange that people on a forum for a privacy focused operating system, who celebrate how difficult if is for the government to crack GrapheneOS, are quick to insult another privacy focused project for not willingly allowing governments to spy on their users. Sure, Telegram's itself was poorly designed as a private messenger compared to other private messengers, but people on here are also attacking the company's free speech and user privacy philosophy in general, stating that it should have been doing more to censor users at government's convenience, which would also inherently erode user privacy.

                It was less than 10 years ago that ordinary people widely celebrated Apple for publicly refusing to cooperate with the FBI in the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack. And this was in the aftermath of an actual terrorist attack when emotions were high - when people were desperate and more likely to support authoritarian mass surveillance and population control measures. Not even 10 years later and now even so-called privacy enthusiasts welcome authoritarianism because they're offended by things people say online.

                This is scary and sad.

                  • Edited

                  Sbpr You explicitly write about things that Telegram has never supported and protected in reality, users are deceived and its CEO has created and propagated fear, uncertainty and doubt about Signal which is truly private and which really allows freedom of expression. I won't write this if Telegram had presented itself as a social network like Discord but that's not the case, Telegram has always presented itself as a private messaging app, which is completely false in practice.

                  • [deleted]

                  Just please lock this thread. It doesn't really belong here and it throws me out of balance. Not that I will ever use Telegram, ever, and I don't wish to say things that might win me another permanent ban. Thank you.

                    locked

                    Why does France have jurisdiction to charge Durov?

                    There are three possible reasons for this, choose the one that fits you best:

                    1. This service has an effect in France;
                    2. Universal jurisdiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction);
                    3. Pavel Durov is a French citizen!

                    My biggest concern is that there are other motives for this […]

                    The breakdown of the inculpation is pretty revealing, in my opinion, but to each his own sensibility, I suppose. Understand I’m only explaining or repeating basic things that ought to be told. I see no point in going off on a tangent just yet, and to give my opinion, especially when I read this thread – too many commonplaces…

                    He was a beacon of democracy in the eyes of the west.

                    More or less, but I won’t disagree.

                    locked

                    Instead, they arrest him when he arrives in France by surprise.

                    It’s usually more effective and efficient to arrest people by surprise and not warn them not to come; trapping them is also quite convenient. Where’s the issue here?

                    raccoondad social media sites have the right (and responsibility) to remove bigoted content

                    Who should be the arbiter of what is considered "bigoted" and what isn't?