There is an expectation from users on any messaging platform that their privacy will be respected. But when public channels had clear calls for violence or that which could be classed as terrorism, they have taken action. The small percentage of users, on a small number of public channels, have seen posts removed and even channels closed.
Telegram is no place for violence, criminal activity and abusers. The company has put forth considerable effort to root out the abusers of the platform by both bolstering its technical capacity in countering malicious content and establishing close partnerships with international organisations such as Europol.
In the short term, based on their sudden influx of users there was bound to be some issues with the incoming user base. What Telegram has done by weeding out such behaviour is show that they take their responsibility as a platform provider seriously to respect both the privacy, but also the safety of their users and the community.
Durov also comments in closing the post, that Telegram will continue to respect users absolute right to privacy. The question from that statement though is, does the right to community safety outweigh the right to privacy for users who are utilising a messaging platform for evil?