I think it would be helpful to improve the presentation of applications in the “Real-Time Communication” category by clearly specifying which app is an alternative to which. This would help users better understand the use cases and features of each tool.
For example:
Signal, WhatsApp, Threema, and Telegram (for private chats) belong to the same category of apps focused on instant messaging.
Element, on the other hand, is closer to tools like Discord or Telegram (for channels) in terms of features and use cases.
To me, Telegram feels like a bit of a “middle ground”: its public channels make it similar to Discord, while its private chats are more like Signal or WhatsApp.
What frustrated me recently was that I signed up for Element, thinking it was a decentralized alternative to Signal. It was only when I randomly came across a YouTube video that I realized Element is actually more community-oriented, closer to Discord or Telegram’s channels, than to a private messaging app like Signal or WhatsApp.
Having clear and well-organized descriptions of alternatives could prevent this kind of misunderstanding. It would also help users choose the tool that best fits their needs.
I dunno, element can be used for 1 on 1 chats or groups. I don’t think PG should be pushing users to use these services in any particular way. An alternative could be an added sentence on the element discription saying something like “Element also offers many community oriented features such as ‘spaces’ and ‘threads’”
I agree, but at the same time, Element also has significant flaws which realistically disqualify it from being used for 1-on-1 chats or small private group chats. That is the lack of perfect forward secrecy. From the warning:
These messengers do not have forward secrecy1, and while they fulfill certain needs that our previous recommendations may not, we do not recommend them for long-term or sensitive communications. Any key compromise among message recipients would affect the confidentiality of all past communications.
Obviously perfect forward secrecy doesn’t matter in large public groups where there is either no encryption or any member of the public can join and obtain encryption keys. Use cases similar to Discord are probably what is meant by “fulfill certain needs that our previous recommendations may not.” So perhaps this warning could have its wording adjusted slightly for clarity, but otherwise I do not think a change is necessary.
It’s also possible to have one-on-one chats with Discord. Element has nothing to do with Signal, WhatsApp, etc. I hadn’t used Element earlier because I thought it was just an alternative to Signal. However, it clearly feels much closer to Discord and Telegram.
I used to be on Telegram to follow channels like GOS, Rethink, Organic Maps, and others, and on Discord for groups like GOS, OSM, and more. On Element, I now find all the groups I wanted to follow: GOS, Rethink, Organic Maps, OSM, Accresent, and many others. This led me to delete my Telegram account.
I’m not asking for a complete overhaul, but it would be helpful to include a more explicit mention that Element is more of an alternative to Discord and Telegram (for channels) than to Signal. It should also be clear that it’s possible to create and join groups, just like on Discord.
Please read this thorough post on why Telegram is not worth your time.
Element is pretty similar to Discord, only much buggier And as others have pointed out (like Discord) it can be used for one-to-one messaging or for larger groups.
Had the opposite experience personally. Telegram is much smoother and has much better UX than Discord.
Wouldn’t go that far, even if it’s worse in that regard, it’s not like these keys can be brute forced. Far more likely would be a vulnerability in the app, which would compromise all messages regardless of PFS.
Well, I don’t think I’m making myself understood correctly.
I didn’t say I used Telegram to talk individually, I was using it for, it’s channels. If I want to talk individually, I use Signal (Molly). You have to understand the difference.
Just like Discord where its main interest is not to talk individually like Signal, Whatsapp, Threema etc, but it’s groups, I can’t see myself asking my family and friends to chat on Discord, that’s not its main function.
Just like Element, its main function (in my opinion) is not to be able to talk individually, but it’s group.
So, what is the real use case for Telegram? If you want to have a individual talk you use Signal. Why bother to use channels on Telegram if you can use Discord and Matrix for large groups or Signal for less than 1000 members? What is the advantage of Telegram? Does it worth sacrificing having another surface attack for a little bit of better UI?
In fact, the only thing I want is a mention that Element is more of an alternative to Discord and Telegram channels than an alternative to Signal.
In the same way that Discord isn’t “used” to talk individually, Element isn’t either. Telegram is more of an in-between.
I just want to point out that group chats ≠ channels. Telegram channels are more like Instagram channels. Actually, I should said it in reverse because Instagram copied Telegram.
There isn’t one, and we strongly discourage readers from using it. It is also worth noting that Element is one of our ‘Additional Options’ for messengers as it doesn’t have forward secrecy.
The page seems fairly well organised as is to me, however feel free to submit a PR if you would like to make changes to it.
And as others have pointed out (like Discord) it can be used for one-to-one messaging or for larger groups.