Part of my point. I use WhatsApp and Signal, both using the Signal protocol, and experience no drawbacks whatsoever.
In any case, for a messenger that advertises as secure, placing security after convenience seems pretty unusual.
In any case, for a messenger that advertises as secure, placing security after convenience seems pretty unusual.
Also let's not forget what a bad user experience Whatsapp offers apart from that. No bots, no channels, no hiding your phone number, no polls, limited permission system in groups,... i could continue for 20 minutes. But what is most infuriating to me is the backup system. It never works and you can only store it in iCloud/Google Drive.
Many Telegram users use them for chats with large groups of people (hundreds or thousands) with native bot support being a huge thing.
Whatsapp and Signal don't give many tools for handling groups that big, with Telegram you can actually manage it.
If you only use Telegram for convenience and not security, then I guess my point upstream stands.
>for a messenger that advertises as secure
Its p much PR nonsense but to be fair it also come from the early days when telegram was the only IM with any e2e that had a relevant market share. I think its understandable that they will not remove "secure" from the description after all those years, it would raise some eyebrows if they would suddenly no longer say is secure ryt?