Sorry I didn't respond to that. No, I'm not associated with Telegram in any way. And I'm not crypto professional :)
I totally understand what Telegram critics are saying, but in every article there's always a note "Please use TextSecure, don't use Telegram". By how it looks, it seems to be a way to market TextSecure and not to discover Telegram's security flaws. And critics rarely respond to Telegram team's comments where they say that the claims are wrong.
> but in every article there's always a note "Please use TextSecure, don't use Telegram".
This is very common in the security field.
Good crypto/security software is often not very straight-forward for the public to find. They're usually run by competent developers doing the work for free and don't tend to have big PR budgets or do a lot of advertising. The product is findable, but they can be overshadowed by snake-oil products that focus on the business aspects.
Whenever a security project or service is attacked as insecure, the natural question is "what do you use instead?", particularly if the functionality was niche or unique. It's just a part of the community that an alternative good one is recommended. We try to avoid saying "don't use X" and instead say "don't use X, but do use Y".
Yes, it helps Y piggie-back a bit off the popularity of X, but that's Y's fault being being bad enough to be disparaged. It isn't just the TextSecure team doing this, it's everyone who cares about this type of service.
TextSecure is in my (and that of crypto professionals who opinions I respect immensely) opinion the best secure messaging app on the market today -- and what they've achieved is a very difficult thing to do, as Telegram sort of shows. It's not about "hating" one or the other, this is maths and trust. TextSecure has proven maths and has spent a lot of time and effort (and open sourced their code) to build that trust and address all the issues these types of apps face.
When you're dealing with a market that can have literal life or death consequences, you go with something proven. That's why everyone touts it instead.
I totally understand what Telegram critics are saying, but in every article there's always a note "Please use TextSecure, don't use Telegram". By how it looks, it seems to be a way to market TextSecure and not to discover Telegram's security flaws. And critics rarely respond to Telegram team's comments where they say that the claims are wrong.