@couts Excellent points to raise. The fact that DMs aren't encrypted was already a concern to me, but the subpoena issue is arguably a much, much bigger concern for journalists.

Short-term solution: maybe add a note to your profile saying you don't monitor DMs for tips & directing potential sources to a Signal number / alternative encrypted platform.

@couts Your worries are correct and it's a good analysis of the situation. Remember also though that all of Twitter's engineering staff also has access to their production data, including DMs presumably, with no logging or audit system.

This isn't speculation: it's from mudge's whistle-blower testimony.

@couts These are extremely valid points. But as for the first point you raised, even Twitter DMs were susceptible to subpoenas but they do also have good lawyers.

I did not think of third point until now, and what you said is exactly what's going to happen once media houses start setting up their own instances and urge their journalists to make accounts in those..

@couts DM's are not PM's.

DM's are "directed messages" not private inbox chatting.

This reply is considered a type of DM in Mastodon territory.

Language counts, and it's helpful to educate up and down.