I think you have a point when you criticize Telegrams for incentivizing not using the encryption and all in all for not being a very secure messenger. But I hear a lot of funny claims lately that don’t appear to hold water (like this one)
Count me in on all those things. But I also like facts.
I recall (and a quick google search appears to confirm that) that back in the day (about 2016) they banned some public ISIS channels and accounts that posted on these channels. Is this what you are talking about?
One can criticize that (I don’t think I do). But I guess it might be noteworthy that A) it appears they banned the accounts on their own initiative (in other words: no “cooperation”) and that B) those channels are public (hence the name). This is the “social media” feature of Telegram. Not the messenger.
As an Austrian I am not aware that my government has plans like this. I think you mean this. Right?
So basically in this case Telegram did NOT delete some public channels (again, one can criticize that and I think I do) and the German government is trying to turn up the legal heat. But all they did (and can do) was sending a request for legal aid to Dubai. Good luck with that.
What exactly was your point?
Please read that article carefully. They did NOT buy that information from Telegram. They bought it from a Telegram Bot. Bots are third party software that use Telegram as infrastructure to provide services. This particular bot or bots appears to have a very shady business scheme. But neither did they buy information from Telegram nor about Telegram users.