And why should I accept your reframing when you try to compare signal to telegram?

I see, signal wants to keep its servers free from content. Cool. This automatically means groups can't accept new members and allow them seeing all the previously posted content. This is what protests use to grow. So signal can't be used to grow protest groups. Only fixed groups would use it to do stuff they want, and "making more people join the protest" would not be on list. They will need to resort to other methods to spread infornation if they wanted to grow. Protesters groups that don't want to grow are not what I could consider a real protest.

Protest is a public movement. It will not be effective when it's private or wants to keep its members anonymous. This is basically what oppressive governments are fine with, so signal helps them in a way.

What led to telegram's "wrongdoings" would not be possible if it did not provide public communication. Signal doesn't provide it either so they'd have to use a different platform. That would lead to the same consequences.

Affected people could use private groups in telegram to avoid issues. But then it would not be what they wanted, and their actions would not be impactful enough (without other platform capable of public communication) for government to get interested in them.