Many in the crypto and privacy community mistakenly trust Telegram because it's "end to end encrypted", but there are huge issues including not hiding the metadata, censorship, centralization, and phone numbers.
Send this video to your friend that asks why you won't join:
https://video.simplifiedprivacy.com/why-telegram-sucks/
Can we stop doing videos as news and opinion please? They're an inefficient, annoying, and intrusive way to communicate this kind of information. If it doesn't need to be visual, it is in video format only for monetization reasons, which I'd think would be more concerning to this community.
Wow, not to pick on the narrator, but this comes off like the worst small town used car dealership TV advertisement I've ever seen.
Here's a real rundown I've put together over the years:
Pavel Durov's argument is that there should be a high functioning UI/UX experience for "non-secure" communication, and when you need it there's something much closer to Signal's very secure client-to-client encryption.
Arguably Telegram secret chats are even "close enough" to cloud chats an adversary might not notice you're doing the "super secret things" (making it harder to identify what to target).
They also provide verified builds even on iOS (though it's a bit of a hack, not "really" quite the same thing).
The only things that can really be said about Telegram's secret chat crypto are that:
It's not "the default"
It's their own crypto (i.e., they broke "rule #1" and "rolled their own")
Ultimately though, it's been just shy of 10 years since Telegram entered the scene, and nobody has actually broken Telegram crypto in any meaningful way -- AFAIK, to this day. Still, there are hypothetical holes in the crypto when scrutinized vs something like signal. So, is it as good as Signal or Threema? Eh, probably not, is it good enough for the average person that isn't target by a nation state? I'd say probably.
And for most people, it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. I'm not even going to argue about that. I personally couldn't care less about instant messaging with anonymity; anonymity and private are completely separate concerns.
Why Matrix and not XMPP? XMPP is also flawed, but much less bloated, easier to selfhost and doesn't have so many people being on central instance like matrix.org (there are other arguments as well).
The only thing Telegram has going for itself is that it's Non-Meta and Non-Western.
Anyone who has a closer look at Telegram's reputation knows that their privacy claims are dubious. If you want end to end encryption, even WhatsApp is better. But these things depend on your individual threat model.
Yeah, end to end encryption in a closed source app can't be proven outside of the company and the company can't be held accountable by the public even if it gets a third party audit at some point because it can always just change the source.
Open source, client side, end to end encryption is the only serious standard.
I try to explain that to people all the time, they only use E2E for so called secret chats and comply with every country as soon as a ban is on the table, there are even reports about a case in Dheli where they did so for Audiobook piracy!
I think it is quite well known that only Telegram Secret Chats are true E2EE. That said, Telegram is still not in the business of selling metadata actively like Whatsapp/Facebook/Meta are. As far as plain features go, Telegram is streets ahead of Whatsapp. But if I needed real "secret chat" I'd probably use Threema, SimpleX, Nostr, Jami, etc where I'm not tied to my mobile phone number or e-mail address.
It's... Not made by Russia, it's made by a former Russian (that no longer has a citizenship there) with Ukrainian roots and a French and UAE dual citizenship.
Remember folks, Albert Einstein was German born but he sure as heck wasn't a Nazi.