This is only possible because Telegram is service as a software substitute.
Same with groups related to the Gaza genocide.
This channel can’t be displayed because it violated local laws.
Ror this one I think they advertised somewhere that the groups would still be available if you download the apk from their website, I did this and I can still see the hamas group
iirc they need to comply with google store policies, but when downloading the apk directly that is not relevant.
Great, I didn’t know that. They ‘ban’ the Russian news channels that way as well.
I thought Telegram was the next big thing as it was secure.
Secure has no meaning.
You know what, in my head I think I want a whole new messenger.
There’s an indexer that acts as a phone book, but at the same time, people can bypass that by directly adding contacts.
All chat history and groups are peer 2 peer and are stored like torrents with the extended backup being self-hostable.
Recent chat history (up to 30 days) can be stored on the indexer, though they’re encrypted and so the server is blind to what’s in them. They should explicitly be opt-in.
Whenever a user adds a new client (device), all conversations recipients should have to approve in order for them to see the chat history.
It should also have all the bells and whistles, like emoji, stickers, groups, channels, etc.
Whenever a user adds a new client (device), all conversations recipients should have to approve in order for them to see the chat history.
Why though? In case of a public chat or a chat with at least few dozens of users it’ll already be excessive if it could work at all.
All chat history and groups are peer 2 peer
Like really P2P or E2E? Because I know at least one chat app that is serverless but doesn’t involve E2E apparently - tox. E2E is an overkill for big group chats because it means you have to re-encrypt every message for every new user for them to see it. Else if you rely on just a fixed shared key it’s not E2E anymore (which will make some people sad and hate your app).
Why though? In case of a public chat or a chat with at least few dozens of users it’ll already be excessive if it could work at all.
For public chats, you wouldn’t need to approve, only for private chat groups.
Like really P2P or E2E?
Yep real P2P. The design is inspired by BitTorrent.
For public chats, you wouldn’t need to approve, only for private chat groups.
I get that but it kind of defeats the purpose. If your group is so small that it’s worth it for every member to approve new ones then it probably doesn’t produce enough content for each new member to care about.
See, we’re already the Messenger Working Group 😂
I have been thinking of something like this too, the thing in common between us is that neither of us has the competency, the time and the persistence to make this happen.
What’s wrong with WhatsApp? Is there something I need to know?
It’s owned by Meta/Facebook a company that’s makes its money spying on users. Signal or Simplex Chat are much better choices.
It gets worse when you watch his interview with Tucker Carlson … guy said if a government forces us to censor a group it’ll only censored from the app you get from big tech play stores… That’s horseshit… If you censor a group from your platform, it’ll be removed from all people’s feeds regardless of their clients or from where they got the app…
telegram has different visibility based on which client you are using and your phone number’s region. I’ve seen it firsthand how some channels are not available on telegram downloaded from app store vs direct apk download. unless if you mean in spirit they’re basically the same which i agree but everyone that has used telegram at all knows that telegram values being accessible more than free speech and privacy.
