Only in the limited sense that Telegram appears to at least have an intention of really providing private messaging and one might hope that they one day drop the delusions of grandeur and start to take seriously constructive criticism about how to do it right, as you and others have presented in other threads here.<p>My understanding of the Whatsapp end-to-end-encryption is that the use of the term is completely misleading, as the &quot;ends&quot; <i>they</i> are referring to are the client and the Whatsapp server (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.whatsapp.com&#x2F;faq&#x2F;en&#x2F;general&#x2F;21864047" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.whatsapp.com&#x2F;faq&#x2F;en&#x2F;general&#x2F;21864047</a>). Unless you know otherwise, I take that to mean the communications are in the clear at Facebook, and in my estimation that&#x27;s tantamount to piping them straight into the US surveillance machinery through whatever they call PRISM these days, or some more or less distant relative of it. (This arrangement would still offer protection from bad actors that don&#x27;t have some form of easy access to Facebook&#x27;s internal information).<p>Both seem like dreadful options in absolute terms, but if we&#x27;re comparing I&#x27;d slightly rather have that user base in the hands of someone possibly sincere and incompetent than with someone competent but almost certainly treacherous. At least there is a sliver of hope for improvement and, who knows, maybe once they&#x27;re off the paved road of Whatsapp they&#x27;ll wobble their way though other alternatives to something like Signal eventually.<p>Since we&#x27;re fortunate enough to have you here anyway, would you mind commenting on how Signal would fare under a similar blockade? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10750898" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10750898</a><p>Would the service be taken down? Do you consider it a priority to try making it difficult to block in the default configuration?