A quick note of something that may be important for people to know: I already noted that DMs here are a bit sketchy security wise, but (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT): if you mention someone else's account in a DM, Mastodon, yoinks them into the conversation.

So, you know, if you think you're talking about someone behind their back, you might be doing it to their face.

@mmasnick so who did you embarrass yourself Infront of ;)
@peter thankfully it wasn't something like that! Someone else mentioned me in a perfectly normal conversation, and suddenly I was in the DMs (though I couldn't see what transpired earlier!)
@mmasnick Yikes. "Important safety tip, Egon." (B. Murray, "Ghostbusters") Thanks.
@mmasnick Reminds me of the time years ago when my boss yelled at our department and I shot a yahoo IM to a coworker that said, “Wow! Someone’s pissy today!” My hart just about kept through my chest when I realized that I sent the message to my boss by mistake.
@mmasnick @trashjuicebox Oh god, if only. I wasn’t fired. I tried to play it off like I sent it to her “as a concerned friend.” Really, I just learned a valuable lesson about putting/not putting things in writing.
@BookSmart @mmasnick how did your boss react?
@Lookitmychicken @mmasnick If we ever had a chance at being friends, it disappeared that day. She wasn’t exactly fooled by my back peddling. I did get a begrudging apology though…
@BookSmart @mmasnick "Whaaat no, I totally wasn't talking about you! That's crazy!"
@BookSmart @mmasnick don't keep us in suspense, what happened next!?
@silico_biomancer @mmasnick I did! I did! I'd direct you to my response, except I don't know how to do that yet.
@BookSmart @mmasnick you can share the link, but I don't see it on you profile so it might just be instance teething issues with the flood of people. May also be the privacy settings for the post?
@mmasnick Man I've fscking done that to myself 9_9 god how embarassing
@mmasnick You talk about it like it's happened to you before 
IF it's confidential use PGP
@mmasnick they’re pretty sketchy on Twitter too. Not sure they ever got around to encrypting them.
@mmasnick easy to solve - don't talk shit!
@Imlordofthering that was just a hypothetical so that people might internalize why they should understand this!
@mmasnick absolutely! I think it is good to remind people to not talk shit though. I need a reminder often too.
@mmasnick rule number one: never say anything about anyone that you're not willing to say to their face. Makes so many things easier!
@FluxLalonde again, it's not just for THOSE situations. I was using that as an example so people would get why this is a concern. I was pulled into a non-insulting conversation and it just resulted in some confusion.
@mmasnick agreed. Private direct messages, or authenticated sourcing of messages looks like a perfect opportunity for automatic public/private key management. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this in the federated context.
it's likely no different than twitter. It's up to the client to display messages intended for the recipient. The server actually blasts messages all over the place, to people you don't know. A simple "like" or whatever it's called on Mastodon, turns into maybe 10,000 messages. a PKI system might be cool but how do you mange the private key? On the server is no-go. Uploading to a web site is no-go. Note that Mastodon and all other federated servers already use a PKI system behind the scenes, so that joe-blow in whattayacallit can't joe-job you. But as far as you sending a secret message to your pal, you should probably use PGP.
or, use a client that supports OMEMO, the "server" doesn't have know anything about it, right?
@FluxLalonde @mmasnick TBH, this sounds like something that someone who has never had to be concerned for their personal safety and never been physically or financially reliant on others would say.
@anarchautist @mmasnick yeah, it's a bit flippant. Actual privacy is both hard and important.
@mmasnick uh, that seems like an amazingly dumb design decision
@meditativezebra
@mmasnick

It's because they're not *really* DMs. What they are are statuses with a privacy level set to "only those mentioned" (and mentioning causes a notification to show up).

When sending a status to an outgoing instance you should also be aware that an instance can just ignore your request for privacy. There was one instance that was modified to do this in 2016, none others since to my knowledge, but yeah. The status is otherwise not encrypted or anything.

@techpriest @mmasnick

i appreciate the explanation

but i still see it as very misleading that something which is labelled a "direct message" will actually go to other people if you mention them

guess all of us twitter refugees are gonna need a while to recalibrate

@techpriest @meditativezebra @mmasnick IMO none of that justifies how it works. It is terrible that you can’t mention someone without sending the message to them. And it’s terrible that the UI doesn’t provide a more clear indication of who is going to receive the message. These are different, unrelated, and bigger problems than lacking e2e encryption.
@graue @techpriest @meditativezebra @mmasnick it's unfortunate that they copied the wording "direct message" into the UI when there are no DMs on Mastodon -- there is only "Mentioned People Only" visibility.
@graue
@meditativezebra @mmasnick
To be clear, it is very much a UI issue. I'm posting this from Pleroma which does make it clear that the "envelope" privacy is "anyone you mention in the post".

Actual secure chat (not this hacky privacy thing) on the fediverse *does* exist... just not on Mastodon, it's on Pleroma.
@graue
@meditativezebra @mmasnick

https://docs-develop.pleroma.social/backend/development/API/chats/

Realize that posting the spec for that might be useful too. Secure here means "doesn't actually leak out to other people on accident" to be clear. Everything I said about external server trust still applies.
Chats - Pleroma Documentation

@techpriest @meditativezebra @mmasnick Well... there's another opportunity for someone to come in and fix.
@techpriest @meditativezebra @mmasnick Perhaps it would be better to use the mastondon identity for email?
@meditativezebra Perhaps the only dumb (arguably) bit is calling them ‘DMs’, which creates the wrong expectations. I like the functionality.
@mmasnick What a way to find out Elon's on here.

@mmasnick this is because mastodon doesn't *really* have direct messages, just regular toots that are limited in visibility to "only people I mention."

https://docs.joinmastodon.org/user/network/#:~:text=In%20Mastodon%2C%20direct%20messages%20are,conversations%20containing%20a%20direct%20post.

I think some clients abstract this away to make them act and look like DMs, but afaict the official mobile app doesn't present any such functionality; you have to create a post, mention a user, then set the visibility accordingly.

Using the network features - Mastodon documentation

Follow and talk to anyone from any server.

@mmasnick and even when they are blocked they see it. Kinda embarassing
@mmasnick
Very good to know... thanks for sharing.. lol
@mmasnick also, ppl don’t realise they *are* DMs. I was talking to someone on web and only realised when I used Metatext app.
@mmasnick It's now happened twice just today. @Gargron @stux is this a known issue?
@mmasnick oof! That is … not ideal!
@mmasnick I'm pretty certain Elon is already demanding his team implement that feature today. At least whenever @ElonMusk is referenced. Because there's nothing like a thin-skinned egomaniac who demands to know what people say about him
@mmasnick I still can't decide if that's a bug or a feature and I've been on mastodon for years 😂