I’m not. I am, however, confident in Microshaft’s ability to make it just bad enough in the name of profit to make people who use it miserable, but not miserable enough to actually switch.
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.
nobody has to, where could they go really? what alternative besides matrix is there? (i’m not sure, maybe there is, just that i’m not aware of it)
Realistically? Peplle will keep using Discord. Switching platforms involves a lot of friction.
i’m not really implying immediate mass migration, but i’m fully confident in m$'s ability to fuck it up :)
I’m not. I am, however, confident in Microshaft’s ability to make it just bad enough in the name of profit to make people who use it miserable, but not miserable enough to actually switch.
theres still a chance they dont fuck it up right?
A pretty good chance, I think.
Mumble is a good alternative for the audio communication and XMPP of course, both are easy to self-host.
Telegram has voice chats now, it’s a no-profit and doesn’t use/sell users’ data
deleted by creator
Yes, it is.
deleted by creator
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.