Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Telegram Ad Platform

promote.telegram.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 256 posts

Re: Telegram Ad Platform

#181

Post by lxgr »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #10
timeimp wrote: post #3

Here's hoping there will be a way to pay for no ads. But a question to HN: why have we not seen a mass-market adoption of a P2P, non-centralised messaging system that requires no external services to work? Mesh and other sorts of networks are cumbersome and have not reached mass-market adoption, so what (technically) is stopping a true E2E P2P platform?

> so what (technically) is stopping a true E2E P2P platform? The fact that nobody really wants a true p2p platform: you don't want to lose all your stuff if you lose the device. It is clear that federated services like email are superior for most users bar some real hardnuts mindfixed on privacy.

> The fact that nobody really wants a true p2p platform: you don't want to lose all your stuff if you lose the device.

Why not provide encrypted backups to a personal cloud storage service? Even WhatsApp does it these days.

Re: Telegram Ad Platform

#182

Post by lxgr »

dotancohen wrote: post #109
swarnie wrote: post #64

Any Telegram users here? I've only ever heard it used when talking about batshit American cults. Not exactly a target audience i want to reach.

> Any Telegram users here? Telegram vs Whatsapp use today is sort of a Shibboleth. Those who only use Whatsapp are typically lax about privacy and security, whereas Telegram users typically take these thing seriously. So those who target the vulnerable are definitely focusing on Whatsapp right now. The self-selection is working very well in Telegram's favour, though that probably is just a happy side effect.

It definitely is a Shibboleth: Everybody recommending it to me so far has done so either due to usability (which I get) or "because it's encrypted and more secure than WhatsApp".

The latter is a very good indicator of misplaced faith in shoddy news outlets propagating these claims uneditorialized.

Re: Telegram Ad Platform

#183

Post by dymk »

lxgr wrote: post #180
dotancohen wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish all my friends were on tg Just send them all a message that you prefer to be contacted on Telegram now. That works surprisingly well, so many people are on the fence waiting for somebody else to make the first move.

Hopefully at least some of them will understand the technical details about Telegram's security models and decline.

Don’t worry, even if they know, they won’t care, because 99.999% of people just want to talk to their friends

Re: Telegram Ad Platform

#184

Post by lxgr »

dotancohen wrote: post #121
whyoh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>whereas Telegram users typically take these thing seriously. And yet they don't mind the lack of encryption?

I cannot speak for everybody, but for me the lack of encryption - thus allowing state actors to intercept - is a far better trade off than the explicit sharing of data with advertisers. Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state. Yet I do not trust advertisers and other entities who seek to influence my opinion. I'm sure that for those who live in states where the government is viewed as adver…

That's the thing, though: Telegram cannot be intercepted by state actors. They are jurisdiction hopping to evade that responsibility.

> Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state.

Given the above: Do you trust any state's government?

Re: Telegram Ad Platform

#185

Post by dymk »

lxgr wrote: post #179
the_gipsy wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has some convenience tradeoffs. E.g. I can read the same chat on phone and desktop without hiccups.

WhatsApp does that too now, even on the web. Signal has a desktop client as well (no web one, unfortunately) – I also haven't seen any hiccups there. Yes, this is 10 or 100 times more complicated to get right when using end-to-end encryption, but it's clearly doable, and Telegram has finally been proven wrong empirically about there being a dilemma of security vs. usability in messaging. Yes, they still lead the fiel…

How good is WA/Signal message search?

Re: Telegram Ad Platform

#186

Post by lxgr »

lpcvoid wrote: post #144
whyoh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>whereas Telegram users typically take these thing seriously. And yet they don't mind the lack of encryption?

Can we stop comparing the lack of default-on e2ee in Telegram to "no encryption"? There is transport encryption in MTProto since the beginning. There are e2ee chats for those who want them.

> Can we stop comparing the lack of default-on e2ee in Telegram to "no encryption"?

No, because defaults matter. Users have a habit of never changing them.

Re: Telegram Ad Platform

#187

Post by lxgr »

whyoh wrote: post #178
lpcvoid wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is quite misleading to a vast amount of people without tech background. I find it dishonest, even more so because Telegram actually does offer e2ee chats - and 1:1 voice/video chats are already e2ee, for what it's worth.

>That is quite misleading to a vast amount of people without tech background. Not as misleading and potentially harmful as saying "Telegram is encrypted" as a blanket statement, because: 1. as I said, the client-to-server encryption is not noteworthy (almost everything has that) and it shouldn't be enough for privacy-conscious people. 2. even though Telegram does offer some e2e encryption too, its availability is qui…

> For all intents and purposes, Telegram is more similar to apps like Discord or Slack, seeing how most of the comms can be read by anyone who has access to the server.

This is absolutely true and a nice comparison at that, thanks! I will try to use that in the future.

Most of my non-technical friends using Telegram are convinced that it's more secure than WhatsApp. Even many non-technical news outlets are propagating these claims. It makes me incredibly sad.

They are promising a usable Signal, but instead are providing a Discord with mandatory phone number registration.

Why resort to such dishonesty? Just let the product speak for itself.

Re: Telegram Ad Platform

#188

Post by lxgr »

dymk wrote: post #185
lxgr wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp does that too now, even on the web. Signal has a desktop client as well (no web one, unfortunately) – I also haven't seen any hiccups there. Yes, this is 10 or 100 times more complicated to get right when using end-to-end encryption, but it's clearly doable, and Telegram has finally been proven wrong empirically about there being a dilemma of security vs. usability in messaging. Yes, they still lead the fiel…

How good is WA/Signal message search?

Very good in my experience for WhatsApp.

In the new multi-device beta, desktop clients only sync about a year's worth of messages, though. Not sure if this will change in the final product.

Re: Telegram Ad Platform

#190

Post by wrinkl3 »

lxgr wrote: post #182
dotancohen wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any Telegram users here? Telegram vs Whatsapp use today is sort of a Shibboleth. Those who only use Whatsapp are typically lax about privacy and security, whereas Telegram users typically take these thing seriously. So those who target the vulnerable are definitely focusing on Whatsapp right now. The self-selection is working very well in Telegram's favour, though that probably is just a happy side effect.

It definitely is a Shibboleth: Everybody recommending it to me so far has done so either due to usability (which I get) or "because it's encrypted and more secure than WhatsApp". The latter is a very good indicator of misplaced faith in shoddy news outlets propagating these claims uneditorialized.

I mean, Telegram also supports fully-fledged microblogging (with personal channels) in a way Whatsapp just doesn't.
Post reply on HN