Signal isn’t perfect either, but their mistakes are far less egregious. They also have removed some of the more egregious mistakes, like needing a phone number (edit: incorrect, see below) or google play services to function. It can be run on a device without Google Play Services because it only uses Google Play Services for push notifications.
Hm? Not sure which Signal you’re using. But it very much still requires a phone number to use. Usernames are not available just yet. There’s activity related to usernames in the GitHub repository, but no release yet.
They did remove the ability to send and receive SMS from their Android app. That was about last year or so.
Usernames have not been released yet. When they are released, phone number will still be required for registration, but you will be able to hide it from other people on Signal.
I knew about the SMS thing (Android only), but thought they had yet to release user names as a feature. I see no settings related to user names on iOS. The SMS retirement was to remove the ability to use Signal to replace an SMS app on Android.
Forgive me, you’re correct. I stopped using it when it dropped SMS, because I had only ever able to get people on it through SMS, but at the time had read plans about eventually dropping the phone number requirement. I mixed those things up in my head.
From what I understand, they’re fully invested in dropping the phone number requirement though, and some more googling says that they’ve had versions of Signal PNP (phone number privacy) running for a while now.
You’re correct, that part hasn’t actually changed over yet, but it’s in the works.
They do not at this time intend to drop the phone number requirement, as they see it as an anti-spam measure. Meredith Whittaker has said as much. Phone number privacy is a project independent of requiring phone number at signup, and it just prevents other users from seeing your number.
Are you both bots? How can anyone read that crap and say it’s a great breakdown?
It’s a single widely known issue, and it can literally be summed up in one short sentence: by default it doesn’t use end-to-end encrypted chats, which are also far inferior in functionality.
I’ve never seen a pro-telegram propagandist, but you anti-telegram propagandists are swarming and very tiresome.
We are in a privacy community. A privacy community with a specific website that makes recommendations on messenger apps. And yet, OP is asking for an opinion on comparisons between Signal (recommended by the guide) and Telegram (which isn’t even in the guide). Why would this be necessary if they weren’t thinking Telegram could be a private and secure messenger too? Even tho it’s not recommended on privacy guides. Draw whatever conclusions you want to fit your own world view. But just because others do so differently, doesn’t mean they’re bots. That’s a very lazy way to view the world. And that is also just my opinion. If you wanted to discuss the points of the article, I’m down. But if you’re coming in here to be reductive because you have a differing opinion, then this is all I’m going to be saying to you.
I guess it’s too hard to consider real people with real opinions might populate a niche website with small userbase and an active anti-advertising attitude.
I guess it’s also too hard to just look at an account and decide if it seems spammy or if it seems like a real person, and easier to just cast aspersions because they… annoyed you?
If you trust Telegram you’re naive. Here is a great breakdown earlier this year from Kaspersky.
https://usa.kaspersky.com/blog/telegram-why-nobody-uses-secret-chats/27662/
Signal isn’t perfect either, but their mistakes are far less egregious. They also have removed some of the more egregious mistakes,
like needing a phone number(edit: incorrect, see below) or google play services to function. It can be run on a device without Google Play Services because it only uses Google Play Services for push notifications.Since when does Signal not require a phone number?
Earlier this year. It no longer functions as an SMS service and you now have a username instead. I think the changeover was in March or April.
Hm? Not sure which Signal you’re using. But it very much still requires a phone number to use. Usernames are not available just yet. There’s activity related to usernames in the GitHub repository, but no release yet.
They did remove the ability to send and receive SMS from their Android app. That was about last year or so.
https://signal.org/blog/sms-removal-android/
Usernames have not been released yet. When they are released, phone number will still be required for registration, but you will be able to hide it from other people on Signal.
I knew about the SMS thing (Android only), but thought they had yet to release user names as a feature. I see no settings related to user names on iOS. The SMS retirement was to remove the ability to use Signal to replace an SMS app on Android.
Forgive me, you’re correct. I stopped using it when it dropped SMS, because I had only ever able to get people on it through SMS, but at the time had read plans about eventually dropping the phone number requirement. I mixed those things up in my head.
From what I understand, they’re fully invested in dropping the phone number requirement though, and some more googling says that they’ve had versions of Signal PNP (phone number privacy) running for a while now.
You’re correct, that part hasn’t actually changed over yet, but it’s in the works.
They do not at this time intend to drop the phone number requirement, as they see it as an anti-spam measure. Meredith Whittaker has said as much. Phone number privacy is a project independent of requiring phone number at signup, and it just prevents other users from seeing your number.
It is planned, and “in the works” for at least two years at this point. It’ll happen, eventually.
Usernames still aren’t a thing. What are you talking about?
Thanks for the article. That’s a really good breakdown for most arguments of Telegram propagandists. 🙌
Are you both bots? How can anyone read that crap and say it’s a great breakdown?
It’s a single widely known issue, and it can literally be summed up in one short sentence: by default it doesn’t use end-to-end encrypted chats, which are also far inferior in functionality.
I’ve never seen a pro-telegram propagandist, but you anti-telegram propagandists are swarming and very tiresome.
We are in a privacy community. A privacy community with a specific website that makes recommendations on messenger apps. And yet, OP is asking for an opinion on comparisons between Signal (recommended by the guide) and Telegram (which isn’t even in the guide). Why would this be necessary if they weren’t thinking Telegram could be a private and secure messenger too? Even tho it’s not recommended on privacy guides. Draw whatever conclusions you want to fit your own world view. But just because others do so differently, doesn’t mean they’re bots. That’s a very lazy way to view the world. And that is also just my opinion. If you wanted to discuss the points of the article, I’m down. But if you’re coming in here to be reductive because you have a differing opinion, then this is all I’m going to be saying to you.
I guess it’s too hard to consider real people with real opinions might populate a niche website with small userbase and an active anti-advertising attitude.
I guess it’s also too hard to just look at an account and decide if it seems spammy or if it seems like a real person, and easier to just cast aspersions because they… annoyed you?
Anyway, thanks for standing up for us both.