@scottjenson here's another way to put it: for me, unless DMs are shown separately from the public timeline, the fact they're encrypted wouldn't make a difference. The dedicated DM space is the critical feature, encryption can follow.

@jarango My thinking exactly. My concern is that there are some peolple that really want it and I'm trying to suss out how important it is to them (and why) What I'm getting so far from this thread is quite the opposite.

@phillycodehound @scottjenson I tend to agree with you. Not every platform really needs encryption, and given that Signal is already the gold standard for private messaging, going over there makes sense to me.

@scottjenson I can imagine encryption would be a very important feature for lots of folks drawn to the Fediverse.

@phillycodehound @scottjenson Agree that Signal would cover it for most people, but some (like me) can't get a Signal account because we don't own a cellphone...

(I'm not saying that the numbers are large enough to justify adding it here, just pointing out that not everyone can use Signal even if we want to.)

@stefan
That's interesting! But it kind of begs the question how you're using encrypted communication. I get that you can launch this Germ app from within Bluesky as a convenience, that's cool, but if you're REALLY using encrypted communication, you're not going to be using it exclusively from Bluesky.

Others have said it but I'm thinking the venn diagram of people that need encrypted messaging (which is huge and valid) is quite distinct from people that need private mentions on a microblogging platform.

@phillycodehound

@asmaloney @phillycodehound Fair enough, but there are other encrypted messaging apps other than Signal yes?

@scottjenson @phillycodehound Maybe there are, but that's where everyone I would want to communicate with are.

@scottjenson Encryption would be very good for private mentions. The point of “private” is that it is private. If someone is notifying of a security related issue for example - no one else should see it. Not only is it against the description of the feature; it’s an actual problem because the feature implies a trust that should not be given.

Don’t assume people can connect on other services. Fix the problem. DMs and private *mean* private to people. Regardless of the tech.

@jarango bingo, now you know what I'm kind of making a strong point to get a feeling about how strongly people actually feel about this.

My point is that encrypted communication is very valuable, but it's usage is quite distinct from microblogging. I'm trying to understand who needs it WITHIN Mastodon (vs just switching to an app that specializes in and likely will do a better job if I'm honest)

@crackhappy @phillycodehound Kind of where I'm coming from. I'm making this point a bit "in the open" not to say any decision is made, but to see if I'm missing something important.

@mattwilcox all fair points!

@mattwilcox My issue is simple: Should Mastodon replace Signal? Given how good it is, I'm trying to understand it's place in the world vs ours?

@neal OOOOOh, that's a cool point! Thank you. What are you suggesting, that PMs are ONLY 1:1?

@scottjenson No. But if you offer “DMs” or “private mentions” you have to fulfil on that. You can not palm it off to other services. Nor do you need to replace other services. You just have to deliver on the implicit promise.

I think it’s unfair to assume users will know or find out that “here” DM/private acts differently to every other service using those terms.

@scottjenson as often happens in UX, it comes down to ontology.

Is this a place for publishing or communicating? Are DMs in service primarily to facilitating the former or exclusively for the latter?

Someone has to decide. I can't imagine that's easy in a volunteer-driven org.

@scottjenson I think that PMs should lock to who they are initiated with. That means the people tagged for that conversation when the PM is initialized are the only people who can be in the conversation. Further mentions *must not* expand the group.

I don't know if that means you should break the ability to do a private reply to a public message, but UX wise it might make sense to do so.