[tyrion]

It's a shame that every time that Telegram is mentioned, Signal advocates feels the need to let everybody else know how superior Signal is supposed to be compared to everything else.

I don't have anything against Signal itself, but this aggressiveness and arrogance is really putting me off.

Has this became some kind of religion? Do you people realize that you are not the exclusive bearer of Truth, and that maybe, just maybe people that use Telegram chose to do so for a reason and are not poor clueless persons that need to be indoctrinated?

To be extra clear, my complaint is about whoever insists on spreading the falsehood that Signal is objectively better than anything else [and maybe also adds a bit of compassion on top ("it's a shame") for the rest of us unenlightened].

I would have no problem, and would actually be more inclined to switch to Signal, if you tried something a bit more modest and honest. Dunno, for example something along the lines of "If you would like an alternative to Telegram that has E2E enabled by default and on all chats, you could maybe be interested in Signal!". But what kind of discussion can we have if the argument is always "Signal is so much better, it's a shame that you people don't realize it" ?

[arthurcolle]

How was my statement arrogance? Stating a fact isn't arrogance, no matter what people say. It's a fact. Saying "it's a shame that people litter when trashcans are available" shouldn't merit a response of "I really hate how these anti-littering people say it's a shame that people litter. I would rather they appeal to my sense of equanimity." Give me a break, please.

Telegram has been implicated in a number of privacy scandals, and then their responses critique the authors of the indictment rather than actually criticizing the arguments themselves. Signal, even up to the recent critiques by Cellebrite, immediately responds and them discusses the merits of the claim.

[jlelse]

Thanks!