Talk:Telegram (software)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Overtaken

Sorry guys, I love Telegram but the last paragraph in the introduction sounds like an advertisement .... 2003:C0:702:3500:5436:3BCC:8257:3F75 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I basically rewrote entire intro now, I felt more of it sounded like an advertisement than just last part. With that however, I doubled one sentence from the History section on how it was funded and by whom. I might try to tackle it on later time if nobody else will. Frog4D (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Uncommented changes

I understand that you, @AB BLEL:, want to help with the intro, but I'm struggling to see the point of these additions. The intro was previously a mess and is now in a more or less presentable state. Adding bloat to it by mentioning a small feature like location sharing or restating that the app has encryption is not helpful. In fact, I find that having the plain "encrypted" bit in there inevitably leads to people arguing about what constitutes encryption and confusing readers. Having a direct but short explanation is likely better in the long run.

I have stated these things before in the edit summaries, so, please, explain to me your point of view. I cannot suss it out from your edits as you ignore the edit summary field, so I'm asking for your POV per WP:UNRESPONSIVE. With the added question of your CTO addition. I could not find a source that supports that claim, so why the sudden addition? I'd ask to refrain from further edits until we clear this up at least a little bit. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@AB BLEL: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC).

Notable users

I think this article could be improved by a 'notable users' link section. Thoughts? ChristopherCantwell (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• I checked out the paragraph on Notable Users. As of today (Jan 5, 2020), the list is 8-person long, 7 of which are extreme right-wing individuals. What criterion lead to the hand-picking of those 8 individuals, out of the 300+ Million users the platform counts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.154.167.11 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  If we're going to add a a "Notable Users" section, may I suggest that we add notorious members from OGUsers and the SIM Swapping community (Graham Ivan Clark, Ellis Pinsky, etc.)? Cybercriminals in general make up a larger portion of Telegram's userbase than "far-right" groups, and are of much more note. 2601:644:9184:5EF0:7316:D62F:83A:63CA (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Notcoin" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Notcoin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11 § Notcoin until a consensus is reached. ltbdl (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Non profit????

The very large ICO documented here

• Even as Bitcoin Languishes, Telegram Raises $1.7 Billion Ahead of Largest ICO Ever Fortune Magazine, Lucinda Shen, March 30, 2018

raises questions about the claim in the lede that Telegram is a non-profit. Investors don't invest this type of money in a non-profit. Don't have time now, but this needs to be looked at. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, some of this is crystal clear. The firm is not a non-profit, so we certainly cannot say that it is in the 1st 3 words of the article. See

• Dewey, Caitlin (November 23, 2015). "The secret American origins of Telegram, the encrypted messaging app favored by the Islamic State". Washington Post. Retrieved 31 March 2018.

I'd also like to point out that I've been reverted on this 3 times now, so the next time the reverter will be in violation of 3RR, and I will report it. Edit warriors generally can't count, so I've been accused of edit warring. For the record, I've reverted him just now for the 3rd time. Blatant falsehoods simply cannot be left in the article. Now please calm down and discuss this rationally. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The messenger itself is non-commercial. Telegram Messenger LLP is a commercial company. They make a profit with cryptocurrency Gram, not with messenger. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • So we are in agreement that the company is *not* a non-profit. I did notice that you just reverted somebody else in the article. 4 reverts is still 4 reverts, I suggest you self-revert. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Article about the messenger, not the company. Read carefully, it is not relevant to the topic. I'll remove it again tomorrow.Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Nope, the article is about the company and its product. Otherwise we couldn't discuss the company's "CEO" or "employees" or state "Telegram is registered as both an English LLP[31] and an American LLC.[32]". Even the term "non-profit" refers to a type of organization. Nice try though. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Just to underline that - please check out the wikilink and the refs, which all refer to non-profit organizations, in the text you reverted back in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Telegram is a non-profit"

"Telegram is a cloud-based instant messaging service." It's about the messenger, not the company. Why did you remove it? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop talking nonsense. You removed it ., . I've only removed the part about them being a Nonprofit organization. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I returned it: "Telegram is a non-profit(!) cloud-based instant messaging service." Also see WP:CIVIL. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Given all this confusion, is the matter important enough for the opening paragraph? I think it's not. Being non-profit is unorthodox enough to be covered right at the top, but companies (messaging or otherwise) are generally assumed to be structured in a traditional for-profit way. So not being non-profit hardly merits the premium real estate.

I agree with Smallbones that we should not use the term "non-profit" for Telegram since it implies a very different type of organization. I also agree with NightShadow23 that Telegram's structure does not exactly match the standard for-profit model either (it's self-funded, has no VC money, operates from a cloud of shell companies constantly switching places). From what I could read in their FAQ, it doesn't seem to claim they are non-profit. Rather, there's a mention that "making profits will never be an end-goal for Telegram" (emphasis mine) – but it is open to the possibility of Telegram making money "to support the infrastructure and finance developer salaries". There is no contradiction to this in the leaked ICO Primer, which states on page 17 that "more than 80 percent of collected funds will be spent on equipment, bandwidth, colocation, and user verification costs [for Telegram and TON]. The rest will be allocated for wages, offices, and legal and consulting services." (Of course, this Primer has to be taken with a grain of salt due to its questionable status as a leaked document, but still).

So there are definitely many ways of looking at this issue. I think it's best if we cover it properly in a different section of the article and keep only the crystal-clear stuff in the opening section. I guess I'll make a bold edit to resolve this now. Thanks @Smallbones: for bringing up the topic and @NightShadow23: for making some good points! JudgeGregg (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. The initial funding is explained, but the ongoing source of operating revenue is not. My assumption is that the company is selling contact information, like all the messaging/social media platforms. Also, ! didn't like the doubts raised about the security of the chats. Thank you, Wikipedia for that. Nigelrg (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I astonished a neighbor by telegramming him. He thought his contact data was secure, but Telegram found him easily. Nigelrg (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I suggest that a separate sub-chapter about the financial model should be added. If it is not sufficiently available, it should be explicitly said. Concerning some other secure messaging apps, in Wikipedia, there is a separate chapter about the financial model. I disagree with those above who say that this question is not relevant. It indirectly concerns security and it is not enough to know that the money comes from a private company. Jüri Eintalu (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A post on the talk-page concerning the articles "Telegram (software)" and "Pavel Durov"

This post is about the two articles mentionned in the title of this thread.
You can read it "there". Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Why "platform"?

User:AimanAbir18plus moved the article from Telegram (software) to the current Telegram (platform). Where is the discussion about such moving? Why is using "platform" being more accurate? If you want the most accurate, why not using "service" instead? Based on the suspicious talking page, I am very doubtful about this action.  🐱💬 06:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)