@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.