[black_puppydog]

There's nothing in this article to suggest that Telegram played any role that couldn't have been filled by any other messaging service.

When a company name gets mentioned like this it makes me feel the real story is that someone is trying to frame them as "bad guys" or make an example of them.

Edit: to be clear, the story of course does and should get attention, that's not what I'm saying. But I get the impression that including "telegram" in the story when really it should be "instant messaging" takes away from it.