but it is not currently structured as a non-profit organization.
It is an ambiguous sentence. Maybe it meant they don’t accept donations, aren’t transparent etc? I wanted to check the source but it’s behind a paywall. Wikipedia shouldn’t really allow articles behind paywalls to be used as a source. However Telegram wrote in its FAQ that it is non-profit, that’s enough for me. How they bureaucratically pursue this goal is their business. If they violate their privacy policy they will be prosecuted. If they change it to exploit user data or to sell it, I will stop recommending Telegram.
By the way, they now have a business model: since broadcast channels with hundreds of thousands of users use to display advertisements, Telegram decided to standardize this behavior, creating a circuit of ads visible in very popular channels relevant to the channel’s topic and not to user data. A part of the proceeds goes to the channel manager and a part helps to finance Telegram.
It is an ambiguous sentence. Maybe it meant they don’t accept donations, aren’t transparent etc? I wanted to check the source but it’s behind a paywall. Wikipedia shouldn’t really allow articles behind paywalls to be used as a source. However Telegram wrote in its FAQ that it is non-profit, that’s enough for me. How they bureaucratically pursue this goal is their business. If they violate their privacy policy they will be prosecuted. If they change it to exploit user data or to sell it, I will stop recommending Telegram.
By the way, they now have a business model: since broadcast channels with hundreds of thousands of users use to display advertisements, Telegram decided to standardize this behavior, creating a circuit of ads visible in very popular channels relevant to the channel’s topic and not to user data. A part of the proceeds goes to the channel manager and a part helps to finance Telegram.