Transport-layer encryption that leaves messages totally readable to the service operator should not be classified as "they do encrypt". It muddies the water and will confuse users.

For the sake of communicating risk effectively, only E2E should count when we talk about encryption. Lack of transport-layer security (TLS, Noise, etc.) simply demonstrates severe negligence and/or incompetence.

> I'm not offering security advice.

Above you said:

> WhatsApp had a severe vulnerability for groups disclosed not so long ago. Telegram has had no such vulnerabilities as far as I'm aware.

A casual observer might read this and think, "Wow, WhatsApp is vulnerable and Telegram isn't. I should use Telegram" despite being even more at risk by choosing Telegram.

Whether it was your intention or not, it will have the same effect on HN readers as formal security advice from any other commenter.

It's fine not to keep up with this stuff and not to have solid answers for basic questions about it. I just think you should use a lot more question marks when you write about it.