That’s the simple difference. Telegram is less encrypted than Facebook messenger is.
People understand that when we say passwords were stored in plaintext on a company's breached servers it's a lot more severe than when we say passwords were stored encrypted on a company's breached servers. If the encryption key was also leaked, we're in as much trouble as scenario A.
It is an abuse of our understanding of these words, which stand related but differentiated to each other, to use the word "plaintext" from scenario A interchangeably for "encrypted" in scenario B.
That is, at best, manipulative of people like you and I and of a media which is all too willing to stoke the fires of outrage.
Which part are you referring to?
I made a couple claims.
A. Telegram has access to all plain text content B. Someone with access to Telegrams infrastructure has access to plain text content C. Telegram is less encrypted than Facebook messenger
The first, I stand by. The second does make a few assumptions.
The second assumption, that if you have access to the infrastructure you could get access to the private key, this may not be true. Depending on how well they manage their systems. Something that any user will have to trust vs a trust less e2ee system.
The final one is, admittedly, incorrect. I misspoke. It’s _as encrypted_ as Facebook Messenger, and _less encrypted_ than WhatsApp.
Data is not stored in plaintext. It is stored encrypted, at rest. Period. In the very Twitter thread posted at the top of the comments, Moxie states he uses "plaintext" as shorthand. So he is making up a new definition of plaintext to slander a competitor, something he loves to do and has done, repeatedly, throughout history. The Durovs, on the other hand, do not pull this kind of crap and are content to let their product speak for itself.