|
|
|
|
|
|
by temp-dude-87844
3087 days ago
|
|
|
There's a fine line between being outspoken [1] about one's concerns, and hammering the same points that every opportunity. Telegram's marketing is heavy with weasel words that multiple people -- journalists, tech experts, crypto experts -- have called on probably being empty posturing, and their implementation shrouded in opacity in the exact ways it shouldn't. No one except laypeople believe Telegram clears the bar set by Signal, Matrix, or any of the systems OWS consulted on, but there are lots of laypeople: millions of them. When you're in the industry, especially a leading innovator in the industry, it's infuriating to see an inferior product being recommended, one that you can credibly suspect doesn't even deliver on the promises, but in your attempts to discredit that product you'll sometimes come off as a crusading zealot, to the detriment of other content you've packaged with your commentary. There was little need to call out Telegram in the post by name, because it does instantly re-frame the conversation, and in a forum some of the conversation will continue down the new path, as it does now. That's a mistake in this format, and it does come off as a defensive misdirect made in the heat of argument. A place to reinvigorate this criticism in light of the new revelations is one's own personal -- or even professional -- blog, where you can start off on the high ground. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:moxie%20telegram&sort=byDat... |
|
|
Maybe it would seem that way for someone who's religiously following what Moxie says, but that's sort of like complaining of hearing "you should charge more" too often if you're religiously following patio11.
I also think he made a valid point in his most recent post, and mentioning Telegram added valuable context to his argument.