Telegram is not a secure and private messenger: it's a marketing scam used by a lying billionaire to make more money.
Here are some examples of why Telegram is not secure nor private and doesn't keep you safe from big companies, oppressive governments and malicious users

• Telegram does not implement end-to-end encryption in regular chats. This means that Telegram Inc has the keys to decrypt all of your messages and can access them at any moment.

• Telegram is not fully open source. Only the piece of software on your phone is: you don't know what happens once the data leaves your device, because the server-side code is closed source.

• Durov is lying about his struggles with Russian authorities. (He's the Telegram CEO btw) Despite his misleading narrative about being exiled from Russia, 120 trips in and out of there have been documented over the course of 5 years, with some suspicious timings regarding Putin's government halting its struggle to ban Telegram.

• It has been confirmed that Russian oligarchs close to Putin fund Telegram, implying very probable ties with the Kremlin.

• Telegram hands over data to authorities, and then tries to hide it. They have repeatedly collaborated with tribunals, police and interpol by handing many users' data and via censorship. A transparency report has been promised for years to document any instance of data being given to authorities, but none has been published so far and Telegram Inc's claims about this are intentionally misleading and omissive.

• After recent Durov's arrest in France, Telegram Inc. has decided to collaborate even more with authorities for crimes such as drug dealing and copyright infringement, and there is nothing preventing the list from extending. We've seen what happened with Elon Musk at Twitter, who is gonna stop Durov if he goes full Elmo and helps right wing governments crack down on oppositions?

• Telegram is getting unusable for free users. Ads (often for crypto-scams and ai-generated slop) and premium features/prompts are covering more and more screen space, making Telegram insufferable to use for free users without heavily modified clients.

• Premium is a scam. While it was advertised as the only way to economically sustain Telegram, the truth is that the money is going to Durov's pockets, grown from 11 billion dollars in 2023 to 17 billion in 2025. Stop giving your money to billionaires.

• Telegram doesn't care about security and privacy at all: their priority is making money. The asymmetry of usability and features between free and premium users isn't limited to fancy gimmicks: some privacy options are paywalled as well, like restricting who can send you messages and voice messages, and writing messages as a public channel instead of using your personal account (which used to be a free feature btw).

• Premium membership intentionally weaken users' privacy. The option to restrict who can send you messages doesn't affect premium users, making it easy for stalkers to circumvent it by making multiple VoIP (sim-less numbers) accounts with just one premium subscription (a person I know was stalked like this firsthand).

• It's the second time over a short period of time that an exploit has been discovered that allows external accounts to send spam and scams in groupchats where messages are restricted to members-only. This is very concerning, and casts doubts on the robustness of any privacy and security features, since the full telegram source code can't be checked and audited.

• Many "privacy" features do not work as advertised, like the "Restrict saving content" option which doesn't actually restrict anything, since pictures are downloaded and stored unencrypted in the Telegram folder.

TL;DR Telegram is not a secure and private messenger: it's a marketing scam used by a lying billionaire to make more money. You should move away from this platforms.
Far better alternatives include (but are not limited to) Signal, Session and XMPP for private messengers, and for team chats (Discord-like) there are Element / Matrix and Status (has crypto stuff)

Hambi 2018

”Since 2010, the world added around 2,500 GW of non-hydro renewable power capacity, about 80% of which was installed in countries that rely on fossil fuel imports. Without these renewable additions, cumulative global imports of coal and natural gas in these countries would have been 45% higher in 2023. As a result, countries have reduced coal imports by 700 m tonnes and natural gas imports by 400 bn cubic metres, saving an estimated $1.3tn since 2010.”

https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2025/executive-summary

"I only have one wish: That the government takes climate protection serious."

What is a climate dismissive?

They're people who have decided climate solutions represent an existential threat to them. My personal definition is if an angel from God with brand-new tablets of stone reading "Global Warming Is Real" in foot-high letters of flame appeared to them, they wouldn't change their minds. So why would I bother to try?

Where does this term come from? It originates with the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication's Six Americas [https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas/]. About 10% of Americans, and smaller but still extremely vocal percentages in Canada, the UK, EU, Australia, NZ and more, are dismissive.

How can you identify a dismissive on social media? I have developed a simple and accurate test: dismissives cannot click a link that may contain factual and accurate information about climate science, impacts, or solutions. They are literally incapable of doing so because they are so afraid of the threat that the truth represents to their identity and/or ideology.

When you give someone who is dismissive a link that fact-checks their comment or post, you will get one of three reactions:

First, and most commonly, they will just ignore it. Second, they will pretend they read it but you can tell from their response that they obviously did not. Third, they will ridicule you: "oh, you aren't qualified to respond yourself? You have to use a NASA link instead?"

Why do they respond like this? It's because they are looking for an argument, because an argument validates and strengthens them. It temporarily quiets the niggling small voice in the back of their head telling them they are wrong. They aren't looking for thoughtful discussion, they are trying to prove to themselves that they are right.

That's the first reason why, if they refuse to use the resource I provide, I block rather than argue: because feeding them makes them stronger while using up my own energy.

Then, there's the fact that research has shown that letting troll comments stand on a blog or social media post decreases the perceived credibility of the post by readers. So if I do not block them, I am actively permitting them to decrease the credibility of my post.

And lastly, the majority of dismissives have much smaller platforms than the person they are attacking. (Not all, though - sadly some have much bigger ones!) So by allowing their comments to stand, I am effectively providing them with a highway directly into many more feeds than they would obtain otherwise.

So what do I do when I get comments like this? If they haven't called me an offensive name right off the bat (which about half do), I respond with a link. And if they don't click the link, I block them.

Our energy and time are the most valuable resources we have. Do not let them waste it.