Yes this is a Telegram client and yes it will break the Lemmy’s downvote world record but I still find this one very nice and “actively” maintained. There are not many good Telegram FOSS forks without Google integrations and similar stuff out there.

  • dingdongitsabear@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    do any of these forks support E2EE? I don’t mean the OG “private chat” thingy that Telegram supports.

    I mean like an add-on, the way pidgin had an OTR plugin that enabled private comms over Google’s unencrypted XMPP servers.

    as a consequence, that would also encrypt everything in the cloud and prevent your chat history being ingested for LLM training and whatnot.

        • dingdongitsabear@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          because Telegram’s UI/UX is second to none; possibly iMessage or whatever it’s called is close, albeit with way limited functionality. Signal and friends look like a PoC from 2015 in comparison. also the apps, on mobile and on desktop, have a low memory footprint with no bloated electron crap, the cross-device sync is phenomenal and there’s the virtually unlimited cloud storage. if an addon could piggyback off of that, that would be spectacular.

          however, OP’s insight as to this being against ToS is obviously a deal breaker. seeing as how they’re adamant about leaving all your shit unencrypted in the cloud I’m looking for other havens, begrudgingly; I’ve been a user from the early days.

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      E2EE is prohibited by Telegram’s TOS (you can’t make any feature that requires users to use your client to access it).

      • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Whoa, they not only won’t implement it, but will work on not letting anyone else do it. They’re more shady than I thought.

        • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          They’re not shady. They just don’t want to lose the market share and I think if they made Telegram really secure, there’d be even more illegal stuff on it and the government wouldn’t like it.

            • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              How is it “shady” to not want to lose market share and keep illegal stuff off of it?

              You could argue it’s “shitty” (perhaps, but it is their servers after all) but I don’t find it shady.

              • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                How is it “shady” to not want to lose market share and keep illegal stuff off of it?

                Market share shouldn’t be a concern with encrypted chat. If it is then I don’t trust it.

                If you’re making an encrypted chat, you’re going to have illegal things on it. If only the chat owners have the keys then that shouldn’t be the server owners concern.