Summary of "Блокировка Telegram: ТОП-5 защищенных мессенджеров на замену"

Overview

Video compares secure messengers as potential alternatives to Telegram, ranking them by convenience, functionality and resistance to blocking. The presenter selected candidates based on viewer comments, will run a vote on his Telegram channel (adding Signal and Bastion), and plans a detailed follow-up about the winner and an attempt to migrate his channel there.

Reviewed messengers

1) Delta Chat (appears as Dlchat / Delchat)

Core idea: a messenger built on standard email (SMTP/IMAP). Each message is effectively an end-to-end encrypted email.
Platforms: cross-platform.
Features and limits:
- Messages use ordinary mail servers; storage and attachment sizes depend on the mail provider.
Pros:
- Account creation without phone number or special authorization (works “on top of email”).
- Good for surviving severe network blocking/whitelisting because it uses standard mail servers.
Cons:
- Storage limited by mail server quotas (example: their servers ~700 MB; Gmail ~15 GB).
- File size limits (videos may fail).
- Potential detectability and blocking by mail providers if traffic patterns are analyzed.
Blocking resilience: likely to work under many blocking scenarios (including some whitelisting), but depends on availability/settings of external mail servers.

2) Element (Matrix protocol)

Core idea: Element is a client for the Matrix protocol (decentralized, federated). Matrix is a protocol with many interoperable clients/servers.
Features:
- “Rooms” (channels) with threading, spaces for organizing chats, fine-grained rights/permissions.
- End-to-end encryption, voice/video calls, extensible ecosystem (clients/plugins).
Pros:
- Fully federated — you can run your own server/instance.
- High configurability and strong E2EE.
- Good for real-time adaptation (developers can create obfuscation clients).
Cons:
- Instance-dependent file-size limits (some servers restrict attachments).
- Some UX/behavior bugs reported with prolonged use.
- Running and maintaining your own server requires extra work.
Blocking resilience: strong due to decentralization — users can set up new servers/clients; better adaptability versus centralized services.

3) Simplex Chat (appears as Simpleat / Simple Chat)

Core idea: no user ID/account required; messages and files stored on user devices; delivery uses a queue mechanism instead of ID routing.
Platforms: cross-platform (Windows and Linux now included).
Features:
- End-to-end encryption (advertised as quantum-resistant), calls (including video), attachments, voice messages, “live text” (typing appears live), personal notes, groups (no classic channels), DB export.
Pros:
- High-privacy model with device-local storage and no centralized ID.
- Unique delivery design and quantum-resistant claims.
Cons:
- Message storage tied to devices (need to export/backup).
- Unfamiliar delivery semantics; channels limited/implemented via read‑only groups.
- Potential operational complexity for users used to server-backed sync.
Blocking resilience: good — lack of central identifiers and device-centric architecture reduce single points of failure.

4) IMO

Core idea: a centralized messenger, similar to Telegram but less capable.
Platforms: cross-platform (reportedly no Linux client).
Features:
- Calls, video, messages/attachments, groups and some channel support (Android only).
- Centralized servers, phone-number linkage.
Pros:
- Not currently blocked (in the video’s context) and offers familiar functionality.
Cons:
- No E2EE by default.
- Centralized storage and phone linkage.
- Poor PC/client feature parity (channels not visible on PC).
- Weaker security and functionality than other reviewed apps.
Blocking resilience: weak — centralized architecture makes it vulnerable to blocking and control.

5) Kit messenger (appears as Kit)

Core idea: pure P2P messenger from the same team behind a password manager.
Platforms: cross-platform.
Features:
- P2P architecture, QR-based contact exchange (no link invites), file attachments, calls, groups, broadcast/read-only groups (channel-like), invitation expiry controls.
- Planned: crypto/money transfer features.
Pros:
- Strong P2P security model and simple design.
- Invitation expiry and fine control of invites.
Cons:
- Contact onboarding requires secure out-of-band transfer (QR codes).
- Channels are read-only and less featureful than Telegram channels.
- Some features still in development (e.g., payments).
Blocking resilience: strong due to P2P design (less reliance on centralized servers).

Other messengers mentioned briefly

Session, J, Fre, Wire and others appeared rarely in comments. Session and Simplex were among the more frequently cited.
Signal: not covered in detail (well-known); will be included later in the planned vote.
Bastion (social network): no standalone messenger yet, but its decentralized structure might be promising; presenter may contact developers about a messenger implementation.

Note: some messenger names/terms in subtitles may be auto-transcription variants (e.g., “Dlchat”, “Simpleat”, “Kit”). Verify exact product names before installing.

Practical observations and caveats

Many alternatives have limits on file sizes and lack Telegram’s mature channel features.
The video focuses on potential resistance to future blocking rather than the current block status.
Running your own instance (Matrix/Element) or relying on P2P/email-based tools increases resilience but usually requires more user effort and trade-offs in convenience.

Reviews, guides and planned follow-ups

Dedicated video about Delta Chat (link in the original video description).
Online course about Matrix/Element on the “Teplits” channel (created by the presenter).
Previous video on the password manager (Spear Pass) referenced — same team as Kit.
Presenter will run a vote on his Telegram channel (adding Signal and Bastion as options) and then publish a detailed video about the selected messenger and attempt to migrate his channel there as a backup.

Main speaker and sources

Presenter: Volomov (associated with the Tekhtok / Tiktk YouTube channel).
Channels/sources referenced: Tekhtok/Tiktk YouTube channel, the presenter’s Telegram channel (for comments and upcoming vote), Teplits channel (Matrix course), and teams/companies behind the reviewed apps (e.g., Kit authors).