• Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If that’s “buried deep” to you, then maybe that technology isn’t your thing. Beside that was totally irrelevant to the topic at all. If you don’t like tgram, use something else. It’s not a pro/contra encryption discussion, it’s anti-observation.

    If a messenger is still alive after this law gets real, then you have your answer regarding security and privacy.

    • vrighter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      the title of the post has secure encryption and chat in the title. but irrelevant, yeah.

      Also it’s at least 4 taps (and you get reduced functionality too) than most other apps, which require 0

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think, you didn’t get the real impact of the meaning of this post if you fight about encryption-capabilities of some clients.

        Wow. 4 taps. This is really above the horizon of most boomers 😁 (of which you surely aren’t of)

        Seriously, who cares. If you don’t like it, use another client. Telegram rocks and has a lot of features i would never want to miss. It’s not all about privacy and privacy. Smart people know when to use which tool at what occasion at their disposal. It’s about having even the option to do so at all, which the law mentioned in the OP is going to fuck away from us. But sure, go ahead and fight your peasant client-wars. Omg tgram is not the most secure client, i gotta fight it until the last secure messengers are gone at all. Happy whatsapping then.