> Yes, really. You don't even argue against
and yet I just did. Can we please stop confusing privacy and anonymity?
Your claims about Telegram being bad for privacy are baseless. Your concerns about messages is valid but it in no way compromises privacy because:
1. No telegram employee can read any messages. They use distributed key generation to encrypt data on servers which means no single server has access to decryption keys and all the servers are in different jurisdictions.
2. They do not sell message content data. If you can prove it, you can go ahead with a lawsuit and win a hefty sum.
3. They do not compromise security. They do not use E2EE by default. Their threat model and vision for a messaging platform is different than yours.
4. Telegram has never given message content for a court order. As mentioned in the privacy policy, they give out only the phone number and IP Address only in case of terrorism or child abuse and only when there's a court order from a country of a higher democratic index.
5. If you truly believe Telegram is bad for privacy even after all the evidence from FBI itself and PrivacySpy giving it a higher score than Signal, then please go ahead and sue them because surely they can't have a good privacy policy and bad privacy at the same time.