EDIT: What I meant by this, as upon re-reading it seems unclear, is that the privacy as I understand it is not supposed to protect one party from the other party with which they are communicating, but rather conceal the conversation from third parties.
Signal's conscious choice is to interpret a user adding another as a contact as an implicit signal to mark them trustworthy enough to forfeit the second kind of privacy in exchange for better voice quality (latency and bandwidth) as well as to lighten the strain on their resources.
In my opinion, this is a reasonable default: Relaying all voice calls would use significant resources and might increase latency for users far away from the nearest relay (topologically or geographically).
Also, what's with the snarkiness? Are Signal's security tradeoffs or vulnerabilities somehow making Telegram more or less secure?
The two of them intentionally make different security/usability tradeoffs (the most significant one being Telegram's choice to provide a server-side message history visible to the service operator).
Of course this tradeoff isn't inherently bad, but weird communication and branding on Telegram's side in the past has given this a weird aftertaste that, at least for me, is still sticking around.
Essentially, they are not much better than Whatsapp stans.
I thought Signal was all about privacy by default? :D
Signal fans love to dunk on Telegram for secret chats not being the only kind of chat.. well turns out on Signal, private is not the only kind of call, and your IP address is exposed by default.