The original Telegram channel has expanded into a web of accounts for different locations, including specific pages made for individual Russian cities. There's also an English-language website, which states it is owned by the people who run the Telegram channels. Telegram has gained a reputation as the “secure” communications app in the post-Soviet states, but whenever you make choices about your digital security, it’s important to start by asking yourself, “What exactly am I securing? And who am I securing it from?” These questions should inform your decisions about whether you are using the right tool or platform for your digital security needs. Telegram is certainly not the most secure messaging app on the market right now. Its security model requires users to place a great deal of trust in Telegram’s ability to protect user data. For some users, this may be good enough for now. For others, it may be wiser to move to a different platform for certain kinds of high-risk communications. On February 27th, Durov posted that Channels were becoming a source of unverified information and that the company lacks the ability to check on their veracity. He urged users to be mistrustful of the things shared on Channels, and initially threatened to block the feature in the countries involved for the length of the war, saying that he didn’t want Telegram to be used to aggravate conflict or incite ethnic hatred. He did, however, walk back this plan when it became clear that they had also become a vital communications tool for Ukrainian officials and citizens to help coordinate their resistance and evacuations. Lastly, the web previews of t.me links have been given a new look, adding chat backgrounds and design elements from the fully-features Telegram Web client. In addition, Telegram's architecture limits the ability to slow the spread of false information: the lack of a central public feed, and the fact that comments are easily disabled in channels, reduce the space for public pushback.
from us
