Telegram is NOT an "encrypted messenger." It supports end-to-end encryption ONLY if it is turned on (not by default) and ONLY for single-user chats, never for groups the way Signal, WhatsApp and iMessage do by default. I can't believe that this myth persists.https://twitter.com/wiczipedia/status/1349341628855693315 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @zeynep
100%- was using this more as a broad strokes description to refer to trends broadly on these apps (WhatsApp disinfo in Brazil and India etc)
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @wiczipedia
Telegram keeps being referred to as an "encrypted messenger" when it is anything but, so that's why I objected. I'm guessing you mean non-public? That's a totally different concept. That said, Facebook groups are already non-public. Shift away from Twitter is something else.
3 replies 5 retweets 40 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I think raising the security concerns the app has is critical and understand why you made the distinction. I think the problems presented by non-public vs encrypted means of comms vary. Eg if they wanted to, platforms could keep a closer eye on groups, DMs, etc. (cont.)
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @wiczipedia @zeynep
But that’s not possible in the encrypted environment. Telegram channels are a class of their own, clearly. Still coordination happening in the encrypted conversations ppl are having. There are also worrisome implications about Durov’s free speech absolutism, etc.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @wiczipedia
No, I'm not raising security concerns. That's something totally different. Telegram groups ARE NOT encrypted and thus presents no extra challenge compared to Facebook groups. Again: TELEGRAM GROUPS ARE NOT EVER ENCRYPTED. EVER. Single chats, only optionally (WhatsApp by default).
1 reply 6 retweets 42 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @wiczipedia
And lol to Durov's "free speech absolutism." Telegram groups ARE NOT encrypted, and Durov is not a free speech absolutist.pic.twitter.com/uoowVnxUTj
1 reply 1 retweet 22 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Yes, the sarcasm there didn’t carry. Don’t think we have differing opinions on this. I am aware telegram groups aren’t encrypted and that encryption is opt in.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @wiczipedia
Then we should not refer to it as an "encrypted messenger". That term should have no use in describing that app. Plus, the disinfo challenges of people moving to Telegram are the same as people being already on Facebook groups as far as encryption or publicness goes.
2 replies 4 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I guess my experience in Russia and Ukraine colors how I think of it. It was and is used messaging there because of its encryption value.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
What encryption value, though? It has much, much less encryption value compared to WhatsApp, Signal, iMessage and a million other apps out there. I know it's widely believed to have some extra encryption value but it's just not the case.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
Ukrainians and Russians (and others in the post Soviet space, especially dissidents) were early adopters and though it’s not any better, they’ve stuck with it.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @wiczipedia
I think they falsely believe—like many others—it is an encrypted messenger. Hence my sensitivity to not furthering that myth.
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.