You’re using appeal to popularity to claim that Telegram has good UX because more users use it which makes no sense unless you have A|B test that you can execute right now to prove your point.
Just because it’s popular does not mean it’s good especially when the market in this scenario has no choice or vote how the UX is implemented.
Which specific issues and in which regard?
The one you mentioned for starters - following multiple channels in a single feed.
Telegram has a terrible UX for social networking and feed following - it’s a private messaging app that has been hacked together into use case it was never made for in the first place and it really shows.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I don’t claim it has good UX. I claim it has good semantics.
I didn’t mention that.
But I also think having everything in a single feed from all places would really suck, like it does in FB.
What social networking is has many different meanings, easily creating groups (communities) and posting\commenting there, like in LJ, seems more important for me.
It’s not.
Factually wrong - it was from the beginning intended to be what it is now. Channels and chats.
And, of course, I don’t think your ideas for that use case are better than Telegram’s. I don’t think social networks with feeds and following are something good.