Sure, because you need all 32GB of RAM but not your human right to privacy. Also, this is an argument against Signal's client, not excuse why you can't have E2EE on non-electron native client.
>"Truck loads of features and thoughtful touches everywhere."
So, eye candy. Not very strong argument.
>"Searching through your messages"
Only exact messages. Gets incredibly slow once you go past few weeks. Client-side searchers are as fast as your phone, i.e., fast.
>"video chats"
Not E2EE for groups
>"best stickers"
1:1 match between my Signal and Telegram sticker packs (50+ packs)
>"even though there are technical trade-offs to an E2EE-everywhere model"
The problem with this BS claim, is you can't point to a single trade-off. Everything you mentioned can be done with E2EE.
>"but do wish it was an option in group chats."
So the question is, why aren't you demanding it?
>"When Signal provides these features, please feel free to ping me back here but until then"
Again, which features? Please provide an actual, exact list so we know when to ping you.
>"the proof is in the pudding and the Signal pudding doesn't taste like the Telegram pudding."
The problem when you add a ton of sugar into a pot of porridge made from shit, is now you have a ton of sugar with an even coating of shit in it. No matter how much eye candy you glue on top of insecure design and spaghetti code that is Telegram, the fundamental truth is, it was never empowering you, only its owners who are collecting as much data about you as FB does, if not more.
EDIT: Fixed lack of E2EE on video calls to mean group video calls. Apologies if this looks like moving the goal post, not my intention.
Actually, I value a non-electron client way higher than E2EE. In fact, the incredible desktop client is one of the main reasons I am a huge Telegram proponent.
You're right in that the 1:1 video chats are E2EE, but not group video chats. This is my concern, but since you weren't making the claim, it's my mistake and now fixed.
It's not my intention to be aggressive towards you or anyone else. It's the argument (or lack of arguments) I'm attacking, not the person.
>"Actual multi-session clients across devices."
Not available with E2EE
>"No Electron."
Sure, because you need all 32GB of RAM but not your human right to privacy. Also, this is an argument against Signal's client, not excuse why you can't have E2EE on non-electron native client.
>"Truck loads of features and thoughtful touches everywhere."
So, eye candy. Not very strong argument.
>"Searching through your messages"
Only exact messages. Gets incredibly slow once you go past few weeks. Client-side searchers are as fast as your phone, i.e., fast.
>"video chats"
Not E2EE for groups
>"best stickers"
1:1 match between my Signal and Telegram sticker packs (50+ packs)
>"even though there are technical trade-offs to an E2EE-everywhere model"
The problem with this BS claim, is you can't point to a single trade-off. Everything you mentioned can be done with E2EE.
>"but do wish it was an option in group chats."
So the question is, why aren't you demanding it?
>"When Signal provides these features, please feel free to ping me back here but until then"
Again, which features? Please provide an actual, exact list so we know when to ping you.
>"the proof is in the pudding and the Signal pudding doesn't taste like the Telegram pudding."
The problem when you add a ton of sugar into a pot of porridge made from shit, is now you have a ton of sugar with an even coating of shit in it. No matter how much eye candy you glue on top of insecure design and spaghetti code that is Telegram, the fundamental truth is, it was never empowering you, only its owners who are collecting as much data about you as FB does, if not more.
EDIT: Fixed lack of E2EE on video calls to mean group video calls. Apologies if this looks like moving the goal post, not my intention.