Talk:Telegram (software)

Non profit????

The very large ICO documented here

• Even as Bitcoin Languishes, Telegram Raises $1.7 Billion Ahead of Largest ICO Ever Fortune Magazine, Lucinda Shen, March 30, 2018

raises questions about the claim in the lede that Telegram is a non-profit. Investors don't invest this type of money in a non-profit. Don't have time now, but this needs to be looked at. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, some of this is crystal clear. The firm is not a non-profit, so we certainly cannot say that it is in the 1st 3 words of the article. See

• Dewey, Caitlin (November 23, 2015). "The secret American origins of Telegram, the encrypted messaging app favored by the Islamic State". Washington Post. Retrieved 31 March 2018.

I'd also like to point out that I've been reverted on this 3 times now, so the next time the reverter will be in violation of 3RR, and I will report it. Edit warriors generally can't count, so I've been accused of edit warring. For the record, I've reverted him just now for the 3rd time. Blatant falsehoods simply cannot be left in the article. Now please calm down and discuss this rationally. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The messenger itself is non-commercial. Telegram Messenger LLP is a commercial company. They make a profit with cryptocurrency Gram, not with messenger. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • So we are in agreement that the company is *not* a non-profit. I did notice that you just reverted somebody else in the article. 4 reverts is still 4 reverts, I suggest you self-revert. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Article about the messenger, not the company. Read carefully, it is not relevant to the topic. I'll remove it again tomorrow.Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Nope, the article is about the company and its product. Otherwise we couldn't discuss the company's "CEO" or "employees" or state "Telegram is registered as both an English LLP[31] and an American LLC.[32]". Even the term "non-profit" refers to a type of organization. Nice try though. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Just to underline that - please check out the wikilink and the refs, which all refer to non-profit organizations, in the text you reverted back in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Telegram is a non-profit"

"Telegram is a cloud-based instant messaging service." It's about the messenger, not the company. Why did you remove it? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop talking nonsense. You removed it [1].[2], [3]. I've only removed the part about them being a Nonprofit organization. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I returned it: "Telegram is a non-profit(!) cloud-based instant messaging service." Also see WP:CIVIL. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Given all this confusion, is the matter important enough for the opening paragraph? I think it's not. Being non-profit is unorthodox enough to be covered right at the top, but companies (messaging or otherwise) are generally assumed to be structured in a traditional for-profit way. So not being non-profit hardly merits the premium real estate.

I agree with Smallbones that we should not use the term "non-profit" for Telegram since it implies a very different type of organization. I also agree with NightShadow23 that Telegram's structure does not exactly match the standard for-profit model either (it's self-funded, has no VC money, operates from a cloud of shell companies constantly switching places). From what I could read in their FAQ, it doesn't seem to claim they are non-profit. Rather, there's a mention that "making profits will never be an end-goal for Telegram" (emphasis mine) – but it is open to the possibility of Telegram making money "to support the infrastructure and finance developer salaries". There is no contradiction to this in the leaked ICO Primer, which states on page 17 that "more than 80 percent of collected funds will be spent on equipment, bandwidth, colocation, and user verification costs [for Telegram and TON]. The rest will be allocated for wages, offices, and legal and consulting services." (Of course, this Primer has to be taken with a grain of salt due to its questionable status as a leaked document, but still).

So there are definitely many ways of looking at this issue. I think it's best if we cover it properly in a different section of the article and keep only the crystal-clear stuff in the opening section. I guess I'll make a bold edit to resolve this now. Thanks @Smallbones: for bringing up the topic and @NightShadow23: for making some good points! JudgeGregg (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I suggest that a separate sub-chapter about the financial model should be added. If it is not sufficiently available, it should be explicitly said. Concerning some other secure messaging apps, in Wikipedia, there is a separate chapter about the financial model. I disagree with those above who say that this question is not relevant. It indirectly concerns security and it is not enough to know that the money comes from a private company. Jüri Eintalu (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The ICO and the company

It's time to put in enough info into the article that the ICO and the non/for-profit status of the company make some sense. The best article I've seen on the ICO is at the NYTimes

• Popper, Nathaniel (March 4, 2018). "Virtual Currency Offerings May Hit a New Peak with Telegram Coin Sale". New York Times. Retrieved April 4, 2018.

Of course I'd like to have more references, but let's not use trade publications like Coin Desk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that the company is a non-profit corporation again. We simply cannot state '''Telegram''' is a [[nonprofit corporation|nonprofit]] as the first 4 words when we know that it is a for-profit company. I've used the SEC Form D that the company filed as a ref, but the Washington Post article would be just as good a ref.

Something similar had been added, which I've removed as well. It's just a PR style restatement of the non-profit claim, straight from the company blog. It is a copyright violation. Quoting from our article, "Unlike other popular messengers, Telegram doesn’t have shareholders or advertisers to report to."

Quoting from the company blog "Unlike other popular apps, Telegram doesn’t have shareholders or advertisers to report to."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Languages

While the official site's FAQ page only mentions 8 languages - this information is outdated and in fact there are already more languages available. For example, when I open the latest version of Telegram app on my smartphone - I can already see 14 languages available for selection, all of these are listed on this Telegram's page. I'm not sure how to properly handle this fact but I think this information (the fact that Telegram apps already support more languages than listed on official FAQ page) would be pretty helpful for people reading this article, especially since everyone can technically verify it by downloading the app and looking at the "Language" section menu within the app itself.108.30.101.121 (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ban in Russia

Somebody should update the article because Telegram is now officially banned in Russia and there is a pretty interesting backstory about that [4]Also, please, reflect the changes in File:Countries_where_Telegram_is_blocked.svg.

Please ban Russians as I get sex emails from them I thing it's disgusting Sheilafamily (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Security

Security researcher Moxie Marlinspike [...] criticized the first contest for being rigged or framed in Telegram's favor and said that Telegram's statements on the value of these contests as proof of the cryptography's quality are misleading.

Maybe would be better to add an info that Marlinspike is the creator of a competing messenger app. Security researcher sounds like he is a neutral individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.25.21.165 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. Why was is this being ignored since 2.5 years? --FunkyMartian (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

- There is such a security factor as plausible deniability. It has not been mentioned in the present text. As Telegram has many features like groups, channels, stickers, etc, and because of that, it has a huge number of users, it creates a plausible deniability that the user has nothing special to hide. Therefore, it has been overestimated that the app does not have encryption by default.

- In the text, it has not been mentioned that Telegram has a passworded screenlock (just like Signal has) and that even the desktop version of Telegram has it. Many encrypted messengers fail to have the password lock on desktop version.

- There is one indirect security feature that seems to be missing in the case of Telegram: clarity of the financial model. It is weird, that in the present text there are only few words about the financial model of Telegram. Concerning some other secure messaging apps, in Wikipedia, there is a special sub-chapter about the financial model. As it is expensive to maintain large amount of servers, someone has to finance it, and the financial model is relevant to the question of security of the app. I disagree with those who write that this question is irrelevant or that if the app is not state-financed, it is automatically OK. See also discussion "Non-Profit..." above.

Jüri Eintalu (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 15:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Telegram (service) → Telegram (software) – Much better suited and more consistent ממשמזמן (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - it's a company as well as software; the software, company and protocol are all bundled up into one pile. "Service" isn't ideal, but I can't think of a better disambiguator - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support it can't stay where it is, the original paper telegram is also a service. Telegram (instant messaging app) would do it as well. Anyway, must be moved. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support a move of some kind per In ictu oculi. Proposed title may not be ideal but it's better than the one we have now. PC78 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom --Ortizesp (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but would prefer Telegram (messaging app). "Service" could apply to traditional telegrams, and so is unclear. "Software" is not as WP:NATURAL, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, nor common as it being referred to as a "messaging app". -- Netoholic @ 03:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my opinion, "messaging app" sounds a bit too unformal. --ממשמזמן (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: For anyone interested, there's a similar move/merge proposal of this topic at BlackBerry Messenger and Instant messaging. --ממשמזמן (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Telegram and TON - should not be here as it is now

TON was never confirmed on any source or social media officially affiliated with Telegram. It should be clearly marked that available information about TON is based on unconfirmed information and therefore cannot be taken as trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username4442 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

they literally submitted the forms to the SEC, so either they're involved or they lied to the SEC - David Gerard (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Server-side code

Publishing the server-side code would allow anyone to audit the server's code and verify that it works correctly and handles user data securely, instead of relying on Telegram's claims that it's indeed secure.

This is technically wrong since there is no way for "anyone" to verify that the actual code running on the server matches the published code (assuming it were public). The sentence makes it sound like Telegram is withholding an important "transparency factor" when, actually, publishing the server-side code would not give any more guarantees to the users. Also, having the server-side code is not necessary for things like e2e encryption (once you verify that your client is only exchanging the key with the other person and not sending any more information to the server, it doesn't matter what the server is doing). William Di Luigi (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian Judge and Prosecutor chat leakage

The Intercept leaked telegram chats about a huge case in Brazil:

https://theintercept.com/series/secret-brazil-archive/

Glenn Greenwald reports here that the leaked file is bigger than the one in Snowden case.

There is no information about how the hack occurred, but I imagine it could had been by SIM swap, and the chat could had been retrieved from Telegram server.

–Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a commercial site for unsecure sites?

Most links on the References form of the Telegram entry are from sites, that

1. distribute APKs which are officially not supported 2. have NO visible WhoIS entries (like apkmirror.com, where the owner is nowhere visible and NO, google is not the owner) 3. distribute most likely malware/adware in their downloads

Could an admin kill the entries, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:6F5E:9900:B02E:6B8A:4425:20E1 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notable users

I think this article could be improved by a 'notable users' link section. Thoughts? ChristopherCantwell (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• I checked out the paragraph on Notable Users. As of today (Jan 5, 2020), the list is 8-person long, 7 of which are extreme right-wing individuals. What criterion lead to the hand-picking of those 8 individuals, out of the 300+ Million users the platform counts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.154.167.11 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

not the original telegraph/telegram software

This is not the original telegraph/telegram software and the article should reflect that: Worldwide_use_of_telegrams_by_country . It's a confusing/false usage of the name of old technology that's still in existence also as software.

moving criticism to reception section

In most articles in Wikipedia that I have seen, the criticism is not the opening paragraphs but much later in the article. I suggest keeping the same standard here and move the criticism to the reception section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.74 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm on it. I think I'll move the tech jargon to the appropriate section while I'm at it. The whole intro's a mess. UPD: Just about all of it was already mentioned in the appropriate sections so I moved the sources when that was the case. I also totally forgot to write my changes in the log, is there a way to add those after? Alphavano (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

refer to telegram channels

Is it forbidden to refer to a telegram channel? wikifarsi does not allow this kind of referشوپنهاور1 (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

which one is copyrighted

there are two links which one has copyright problem figaru or reuters? @Sphilbrick: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telegram_(software)&diff=973309553&oldid=973302944 Baratiiman (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, I identified the url in my edit summary this site S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick i copied it from spanish wikipedia why is it not removed from there Baratiiman (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, Because I don't have anything to do with the Spanish Wikipedia. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, If you copied material within Wikipedia, you need to identify the source for attribution purposes. For future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

iOS client doesn't seem libre

The old repo (before Telegram X replaced it) is archived.

The new repo doesn't have a license: https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift

--Tuxayo (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this what you're looking for? https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift/blob/master/LICENSE

ASpacemanFalls (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Censorship section mix

Censorship section seems to mix state and non-state actors. I suggest splitting it into two: Censorship by governments and Use by radical and illegal groups. Bezymov (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, though the government part would need to have sub-sections still, quite a lot of info there. The latter can probably be compacted into a single section. Could be a start on getting this in order, some of the messaging app pages are a bit of a mess, this one included. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

After a deeper look, I'd actually suggest splitting into more than two sections considering its current content, perhaps? As it stands, it has sections specifically about state censorship (in protests, regular, etc), use by radical groups, and, for some reason, bits like the one on a Puerto Rico scandal where there's no mention of censorship. I'll reformat it to have the two sections but not sure what to do about those bits that don't really fit the 'Censorship' theme. Maybe they could be a footnote in a different section? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Messy state of the article

This article needs a makeover and I definitely can't do it alone. It's had a lot of information added by a lot of passionate editors. Even though everyone means well, it seems that there have been slip-ups when it comes to following the style manual. I can't polish it all myself - not while keeping my job, anyway - so I need help. Maybe we should start with the Features category and clean that up, and could even reorder it to list features everyone would use before stuff only techies would use (like IFTTT). Ideas for structuring it all are totally welcome. Who's in? Alphavano (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone suggested the same for the Censorship section above and I supported that with the addendum that it should be applied to the whole page. This isn't the only app page that needs pruning and grooming, but I agree it's in a pretty dramatic state as opposed to the rest. Doesn't look like too many are eager to take up this call. Maybe we should ping older editors who contributed to this page. Or post somewhere like Reddit, it probably has some people who could help, at least, give suggestions and tips on what the page lacks. For now, I'd definitely say it's a good idea to ping some of the older editors as well as the current ones and see who's up to the task. Will do that now.ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Spaceman. Maybe it's time I take another look at Reddit. Alphavano (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit rusty, haven't edited anything for more than two years at the time of Spaceman's ping, but I'll see what I can do here. It definitely appears that this entire entry doesn't conform to WP:5P on multiple (not to say innumerous) counts. In fact, I wouldn't go anywhere beyond the lead section for now. Will make a new section here to discuss some of the important issues there. JudgeGregg (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back, your honour. The whole article's a mess of stuff added over time, but I guess the opening is a good a place to start as any. Alphavano (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Controversies in Lead Section, part I: Russia

I noticed there was a recent "edit war", with Alphavano (talk · contribs) suggesting to remove from the intro mentions of "originated in Russia" and details on reception in regards to the optional End-to-End Encryption offered in the app, and AB_BLEL (talk · contribs) bringing it back (sadly, without comments), each supported by an unnamed user (with | Belgian? and | Finnish? IP addresses respectively). The best way to resolve this conflict, as mentioned in WP: Dispute Resolution (see especially "Avoiding Edit Wars"), would've been to create a discussion here, on the talk page – and reach a consensus, instead of engaging in back and forth edits. I urge my fellow editors to do just that!

As for the issues at hand, the WP: Manual of Style / Lead Section clearly dictates that the intro "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarise the most important points, including prominent controversies". Given the app's history, I would argue that the Russian origins of its creators can be considered a "prominent controversy", which deserves some attention in the intro. I'd say, Alphavano was not right to remove that info. That said, AB BEL's "originated in Russia" is incomplete and may mislead readers. Alphavano should've improved the part instead or trying to remove it. A few google searches show that we have good sources that sum up Telegram's history and relationship with Russia pretty well. I'm not entirely convinced we need to mention the unsuccessful block in the intro since it's been lifted already – maybe best left in its appropriate section, further down the page. It would be necessary, however, to also include the firm's current seat, which still looks like it's Dubai. I guess I might as well go and make that edit now. :)

(Started typing out my thoughts re: the End-to-End Encryption issue in the intro, but decided it would be better to get a separate section for that, to make discussion easier.) JudgeGregg (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Started making the edit but, checking sources, I can't find anything that points to Telegram being created/founded in Russia. I always assumed it got started there because Telegram was founded in 2013 and Pavel Durov himself seemed to have left Russia in 2014. But one of the earliest mentions of Telegram in the press archives says, two months after it had been founded: "Another lesson Telegram’s team learned from its experience with VK is to stay clear of Russia’s government. The app rents data centers and servers around the world, including in London, San Francisco, Singapore and Helsinki. “As a foreign company and offshore entity we will not be obliged to comply with the rules of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and countries like that,” says Durov." My quick searches didn't yield sources that contradict this except the Telegram wiki page itself (which supports the claim with a link to a Forbes profile that doesn't include the info and two broken Reuters links), as well as some mentions in the lesser media that seem to have been copied from the wiki page. Fellow editors, please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong. For now, will just add the Dubai base to the intro. JudgeGregg (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still learning some of the ropes here re: disputes. For the intro, I was trying to get this page more in line with other pages like Discord, where I've been trying to spruce the page up a bit. I thought that when things weren't really cited they should be removed - I'll be a little more careful with the backspace. I noticed that there's duplicate info in the opening now, though. Alphavano (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I've noted this section and did my best to give the lead section a facelift, however, I still have some minor qualms with it. Forgive me if this is too pedantic but the wording of "The app launched in [...], and is now based in Dubai" irks me as it's not the app but rather the company that created it. So I'll look at some pages of similar messengers and, if my hunch is correct and the wording is different there, rewrite that sentence. I'll leave the info intact, just separate it so it goes like "The app launched in [...]. The company is currently based in Dubai." instead. On a less important note, is the mention of the Windows Phone platform crucial enough for the intro section? If the platform is defunct, it's no longer as relevant as Android/iOS. Lastly, I'd appreciate it if anyone can help me find a source on when exactly the Android version launched (one that doesn't come from Telegram's own retrospective.) ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Controversies in Lead Section, part II: End-to-End Encryption

(I'm making this a separate section for ease of subsequent discussion. Please see the opening from Part I for context.)

The End-to-End Encryption issue is less clear-cut. I can see why the unknown Finnish IP owner would like to drive home the point that apps that use E2EE everywhere are more secure than apps that don't. However, I don't see Telegram stating the opposite on the App Store or their website, including in the referenced FAQ section. Telegram also doesn't seem to claim it has E2EE where it doesn't (as always, please correct me if I'm wrong!). For these reasons, I feel that we are at risk of violating WP: Neutral Point Of View, which states that "achieving... neutrality means carefully and critically analysing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." and "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." My personal opinion is that it could be debatable that E2EE needs a mention in the intro as one of the "prominent controversies" (beyond the need for stating clearly that the E2EE offered by the app is optional, as well as where it uses E2EE – in secret chats, voice and video calls). Nevertheless, despite this personal opinion, I agree that we should keep a mention of the E2EE issue in the intro, but we should also do that upholding the 5 pillars, most importantly, Neutral Point of View and WP: Original Research. That said, I've given enough of my Saturday to these matters :) and will leave this rest for now, and welcome your comments. Gregg out. JudgeGregg (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

References

As the person behind the edits, let me explain. People do not study cryptography, computer science, network security, protocol design etc. as part of their basic education. Average person does not understand the difference between end-to-end encryption, and standard encryption. To them encryption means "private". When they want encrypted communication, they generally want end-to-end encryption. People don't e.g. like the fact Facebook eavesdrops on their private messaging, and tracks them across the web, although everything related to that is encrypted, always, without exceptions.

The fact it's controversial to say client-server encryption means server will have access to the decryption key, already proves there's a problem. The decision to omit this piece of information is dangerous, and invites every user who does not understand the distinction between the two, to place false trust on the protocol. I have had to explain telegram is not E2EE to dozens of peers who study computer science, and it has come as a shock to them. Average user will understand even less about the topic.

If explaining what something means in Wikipedia is considered bias, then its time the editors do some introspection.

Telegram's security is extremely controversial subject, and omitting it completely from the introductory chapter, is extremely dangerous. There are multiple security researchers who will tell you the first thing to know about the app is it's insecure. Omitting all references to the section about security in the summary is to pretend the section about privacy/security controversies at the bottom of the wiki article does not exist. There are lots of users who become convinced Telegram is suitable for their needs half-way through the 20 subsection long feature list: they will never even reach the security issues section.

This is because it is a known fact the human attention span is becoming shorter and shorter https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790

If the summary does not reflect the content of the wiki page, it is not a proper summary. Explaining the situation as "Telegram uses client-server encryption" does not convey the necessary information to average Joe. Explaining the situation as "client-server encryption means others can read your messages too" is a good explanation. It removes the necessity of obtaining a degree in computer science to understand what client-server encryption means.

Saying "client server encryption is terrible for security" would be biased, although it would also be factually correct, however, some readers for sure think it's a good service provide can scan messages for illegal content.

But now it seems even explanation of implications of technical terms is bias, and for end users, that is very similar to hiding caveats in legal fine-print.

"a variety of reliable sources"

Can you point to any study that shows Telegram's wording is clear to end users? If it is, why do so many people I've encountered had the same misconception that Telegram uses stronger encryption than WhatsApp? Where does Telegram explicitly state their full threat model: "Warning: In the event our servers were compromised, the remote attacker could access cloud messages stored on the server"? If such warning would be available anywhere in Telegram's sites, this would be a non-issue. What Telegram is actually saying on their front page is "Telegram keeps your messages safe from hacker attacks." which is impossible, as security problem of protecting a server from all malicious inputs is an intractable problem similar to halting problem. Telegram's server can not be proven to be secure, and the question is not if, but when they get hacked.

In my opinion, omitting the explanation what client-server encryption means is more political and on the side of "censorship by technobabble". Wikipedia is not an academic journal read only by people with degree on subject matter, and even an academic paper discussing end-to-end encryption would need to define the terminology.

This is especially important, as there exists no separate Wikipedia article for client-server version MTProto, and because MTProto has two variants, one is E2EE, another is client-server, and there is no clear distinction between the two, which has been especially harmful in online discussion about the matter over years. Telegram hasn't been eager to underline the difference, mostly justify their design choices with broken arguments.

Because the matter is inherently political the question is, whose side is picked. Omitting the information serves Telegram as a company, and it comes at a cost for average Joe. Including the information serves the userbase who need to be able to make an informed decision on whether the application is secure enough for their needs. I am not against Telegram, I am for transparent threat model. If Telegram does not wish to convey neutral threat model that addresses all issues transparently, that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow in their footsteps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqp2 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversies Section

On other pages like Discord, the section about an app's use is called "Reception." On this page it's called "Controversies." I'm going to change that to line it up with the style of those other pages. As well, the "Illegal Uses" subsection is all information included earlier in the article, giving it undue weight and is not sourced well (WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:PROVEIT). Going to go ahead and clean that up while I wait for lunch. Alphavano (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd dispute deleting the cryptocurrency 'pump-and-dump' mention. It's well-sourced and quite relevant, unlike the rest of that section. I'll restore that part for now, maybe someone who knows more about crypto could come and expand it to give it more weight? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should at least be past tense. It's an old source. Alphavano (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, new problem. The page now has two 'Reception' sections. So we either have to merge or change this second one's name yet again. What's the best course of action? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The middle of a page is an awkward place for Reception. I'm going to roll them together into the section at the end. Alphavano (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Data portability

ASpacemanFalls why did you not keep data portability Baratiiman (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I kept it but transferred it to 'Cloud messaging'. Or do you mean it should also include something like "Chats are ported with all data, including media"? If yes, I can amend it, sorry. Don't really know how the function works as I haven't imported any chats yet. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)