Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. Calling it "{arbitrary brand} revolution", when pretty much every messaging platform is indistinguishable feels crass and tacky. The brand isn't the one in the trenches making the sacrifices. It could be called a smart phone revolution instead. A revolution of the people.
Telegram has some distinct features that makes it quite good during protests: - location based chats, you see people around and can start a local group. So you can easily get in contact with other protestors around you. - Broadcasting channels - Not by default, but you can creat encrypted chats, with auto destruction - Since a few days, encrypted video calls - Not owned by Facebook
"nine out of ten Egyptians and Tunisians responded to a poll that they used Facebook to organise protests and spread awareness" [1]
"During the Arab Spring the number of users of social networks, especially Facebook, rose dramatically in most Arab countries, particularly in those where political uprising took place, with the exception of Libya, which at the time had low Internet access preventing people from doing so" [1]
As far as I'm aware Facebook is actually owned by Facebook.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spri...