Using English is the only way that all my colleagues are able to read it, but if it’s just meant for you, or only for Spanish speaking people, I’d say why not.

Telegram’s “privacy” is fully based on people trusting them not to share their data - to which Telegram has full access - with anyone. Well, apart from the optional E2EE “secret chat” option with non-standard encryption methods that can only be used for one on one conversations. If it were an actual privacy app, like Signal, they could’ve cooperated with authorities without giving away chat contents and nobody would’ve been arrested. I’m a Telegram user myself and I from a usability standpoint I really like it, but let’s be realistic here: for data safety I would pick another option.

I don’t understand the relevance of what you’re saying. Do you mean that the platform should have the right to allow biological females only (following the definitions of your law system)? Do you think that that’s implied when a platform is female only and defensible in court? Not a snarky remark, just genuinely curious what you mean. This case was all about gender identity discrimination and I don’t see how biological sex fits into the picture.

She had sued the platform and its founder Sally Grover in 2022 for unlawful gender identity discrimination in its services, and claimed Ms Grover revoked her account after seeing her photo and “considered her to be male”.

Judge Robert Bromwich said in his ruling that while Ms Tickle was not directly discriminated against, her claim of indirect discrimination was successful as using the Giggle App required her “to have the appearance of a cisgender woman”.

Judge Bromwich said the evidence did not establish Ms Tickle was excluded from Giggle directly “by reason of her gender identity although it remains possible that this was the real but unproven reason”.