this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
420 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
76512 readers
3125 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's weird for Signal to not be able to do what Telegram does. Yes, for this particular purpose they are not different.
Telegram is basically not even encrypted. They are not offering the same service.
For the purpose of "shoot a message, go offline and be certain it's sent" it's the same service.
If sending a message is the only requirement, email fits the bill and has worked for half a century. If we're being real, the reason Signal "can't do what Telegram does" is because Telegram doesn't even attempt to do what Signal does. Signal is tackling a much bigger problem.
What are you talking about?
I'm saying that the parts of infrastructure needed to accept a message to the service from the client application, encrypted or not, associated to a user or not, are under same requirements for Signal and Telegram.
I don't know if you understand that every big service is basically its own 90s' Internet self-contained, and what accepts your messages is pretty similar to an SMTP server in their architecture.