@scottjenson I'm a fan of prioritizing the DM experience first.
wrt encryption, part of the challenge is how to interpret "private." Instead of the, "Who can see this?" default posture of Mastodon, this starts to ask something like, "Who cannot see this (beyond the addressed person/people)?"
@scottjenson I think any service with an implication of privacy should be encrypted, but that encryption needs to be done right. And the UI needs to convey the level of encryption clearly so people don't make incorrect assumptions about the security of their communications.
So I'm okay with the UX coming first, if it's designed with future encrypted messaging in mind.
I get DMs are not the focus of the app, so probably not a big priority, but they are still useful and important to many users.
Signal makes it easy to create a revocable "message me" link. I have one in my profile. If anyone wants to send me an encrypted message they can click on it and send one pretty easily.
I think reply controls and UX improvements should come first, maybe with, as others suggested, a note that the message is not encrypted (yet)
@gbargoud makes sense, thank you
As an aside, I'm surprised there isn't an instance at a link like staff.joinmastodon.org with an official account for each member of the core mastodon team.
I had to check your profile to see that you were someone asking for feedback who could do something about it rather than someone who was asking out of curiosity
@scottjenson imo that’s totally fine. Just need to make it known straight up that the messages are not encrypted, which is more or less just an alert that hard blocks interaction until acknowledgement…
@scottjenson I am kind of surprised that no one has mentioned that "oh the admins of the servers shouldnt see my DMs!" Creates a moderation nightmare and a harassment loophole that really shouldnt be considered worth the hassle. I am on team "just use signal" because if you need to have a really private conversation with someone who didnt give you their private contact information, no you dont.
@Montaagge There is a lot of traffic on this thread and that point has been made by the way. It's a reasonable request. I just appreciate that it's not a simple ask and I'm hoping we can tackle some UX improvements WHILE the background work is going on.
@scottjenson one huge problem with private mentions is that they actually aren't equivalent to DMs... because if you try to talk about another person and link to their profile, you effectively "mention" them and they can see the message. I don't know of any other DM that works this way and the UX is extremely confusing to users and just wrong IMO.
I think private mentions should be scrapped entirely and reworked as a different AP object type than Note so that they are treated differently.
@scottjenson Adding a vote for encryption first. For the simple reason that “personal message" is associated with a modicum of privacy. And the current Mastodon implementation does not provide much privacy at all for personal messages. As welcome as UX changes are, they would not change the underlying architectural issue, and might even increase the _appearance_ of those messages providing any actual meaningful privacy.
Let me know if you find that explanation needs more details. 😉
@jochenwolters That's a very clear explanation thank you. I don't think many apprecaite just how hard it is to add encryption properly and it's like going to take a while. As we already have PMs in the product and improving them would be very helpful, it seems like we shouldn't wait.
Part of why I'm asking is that here are MANY ways to use PMs, many of which do not require encryption at all. Of course it would be very nice to have. But I just want to call out, even with encryption, you likely want to be very careful using Mastodon for organizing as your profile and public posts would likely leak a tremendous amount of personal info.
Again, this doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, just that microblogging makes it hard to proprely protect your identity.
@scottjenson Not critical, as I wouldn’t expect it because of the current implementation.
If a future iteration of PMs would change that, it might as well be a good idea to communicate it explicitly in the UI, e.g. at the beginning of a new conversation. Basically the opposite of what WhatsApp does (see screenshot).
Also, if encryption means it’ll harder for third party apps, services,… to adopt PMs, then I feel like it’s definitely not worth the effort.
@scottjenson Don't really need encryption just for the DM edge-case. I only need to know where/for who exactly my message will pop up automatically, though.
Suggesting "encryption" exists in mastodon, how can one make sure it is interoperable with ActivityPub AND nobody gets it wrong and falsely assumes encryption is omnipresent, when it is absolutely not.
@mray Encryption is being explored by a FEP
@scottjenson Interesting, seeing how other protocols got burned by adding encryption as an afterthought (XMPP, MAIL) I think we are still very very far away from having something comprehensive, reliable and usable. Unless that's a reality I'd shy away from promoting it unnecessarily loud. 🤷♂️
Encryption rocks though. I hope that FEP has lots of traction.
@mray But now you know why I'm asking. There is lots of energy around encryption but it's a very tricky thing to be done right. My point was simply that we start with some simple UX improvements and not wait for the encryption (given we already have private messages)
@scottjenson also dealing with encrypted chat inside the browser is extra spicy. I'd love to see people seriously tackling that, but I remain reserved. 😬
@scottjenson I'm pessimistic up to the point where you have to have to assume it will fail completely. Just as XMPP and MAIL failed.
The only encryption implementation with success were the approaches where the UX can be controlled centrally.
For MAIL there is #autocrypt now, it is astonishing of good it is – but email is still not encypted today.
XMPP/Jabber has OMEMO, but stillt struggles with client adoption and it isn't omnipresent.
Where it worked: #DeltaChat and #Signal both using a central library that can make sure encryption reliably lands at peoples fingertips.
@mray I so appreciate your concerns. It's actually why (personally, I'll add) I'm concerned why encryption may take a while (the Mastodon team is very thorough and would not release a rushed version of this) This is why my original post really had nothing to do with "should we add encryption" but was rather "while we're waiting can we at least make some improvements?"
@scottjenson My take (which seems to fly in the face of the zeitgeist) is that Mastodon is not meant foremost as a private messaging app. It is at its core, an *open, social* microposting platform. There are apps that are radically better suited for private and safe comms, and I am a huge proponent of letting things be true to themselves. When you try to shoehorn stuff into a system not intended to do that stuff, it ends poorly.
So, sure, DMs out of the timeline, but no Signal-like hardening.
@octothorpe Thank you! To be clear, I'm not against adding encryption to Mastodon but it would be rather different than what you get with Signal. Here is a simple example. Many people are quite public with their real name here on mastodon, that makes sense. But if you REALLY wanted to use an encrypted message you ikely wouldn't want to use your public name. So in many ways, encrypted messages by you very little (well,in some situations)
That's kind of my point, I don't think people really see the FULL JOURNEY necessary for encryption.
However, many have said "I just don't want to have to trust my admin. I just need it for privacy" and you know, that's a perfectly good reason and to be fair, has NOTHING to do with competing with Signal.
That's all I'm trying to do here, understand how and why it would be used.
@scottjenson I dig it. And yeah, the complications you implied are probably exactly the same I did (my post char limit is small)… which is why I shorthanded to ‘signal-like’.
But yeah, I get why folks may want it. I think it’s probably best to not encourage that behaviour in the app (because of how easily it could be accidentally borked, ex: public posting passwords). The notion being if you KNOW it’s not encrypted, you’re less likely to send sensitive material.
in 2026, gabe is absolutely right. a few years ago, i would've been the first one debating this position... but it's 2026.
@gabek @scottjenson
@by_caballero @gabek We've publicly announced we're working on encryption. It's a TON of backend work. It can proceed in parallel with UX work. It's not one vs the other. Especially as the UX work is FAR less than the encryption work
@scottjenson some of these are in the Mastodon roadmap!
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2026/02/our-technical-direction/
@mapache Yes, I know! 😉 I'm not saying no I'm exploring when (as encryption will take longer than UX improvements
As long as there's a "hey, this isn't encrypted!" Kind of Disclaimer, I'm fine. If we wanted encryption, there's other apps or services. But, I don't want people to mistakingly share sensitive info on this platform.
That said, encryption in the future would be amazing, but I prefer other improvements not be blocked by that for the moment.
@scottjenson broadly, encryption for DMs on a social network isn't something I'd expect.
Would any of the proposed changes to DMs trigger age-verification requirements in the UK, Australia, etc?
@mia Honestly I hadn't even thought of that, thank you for bringing it up!
Yes, I need it.
Because I do not trust you, the admin.
I also don't trust those who will seize servers.
@katzenberger Fair enough, but can you tell me when you'd use it on Mastodon vs when you'd use it for Signal? I'm trying to understand if Mastodon, by implementing this is likely to replace Signal usage for many people? I don't think it will so I'm trying to understand WHY you'd need it in Mastodon when you just use an app that specializes in this.
Because "private" means "private", on whatever platform.
Platforms have different purposes. I'm not seeking for a Signal replacement, I just want the promise of "private" conversations to be kept. Like I'd expect it from any other platform that is speaking of "private" messages.
More pointedly, I would accept DMs from (and periodically check my inbox for) Mastodon but i would not give my unique and precious signal identifier to all of mastodon and all who crawl it @katzenberger @scottjenson
@by_caballero @katzenberger This is something that I have to admit a blindspot. There appear to be so many nuanced layers to "sending and encrypted message". For example, some just want to keep the admin from seeing stuff (that seems like the lowest level)
But at the highest level is for example protext organizing. I can't imagine ANYONE wanting to do that from a Mastodon account only because your profile and public posts likely leak a tremendous amount of personal info.
If you had a LOCKED DOWN account, sure it could work. My point is that I'm trying to understand these very different usages as we could naively asume we're good at one when we aren't. For example, I strongly feel that Signal very much still has a role here even if we do implement it correctly.
You know who's thought a lot about secure messaging? SWF's @mallory .
See also:
https://socialwebfoundation.org/2025/12/19/implementing-encrypted-messaging-over-activitypub/
@katzenberger Fair enough, I'm not arguing against that. It's just that encryption isn't easy and will take a long time. I'm using this as a 'research foil' to understand why people use Signal vs encrypted Mastodon PMs.
I totally get that people just want safety baked into everything, I'm not against that in any way. But it is very hard to do well.
I understand that, and if there is a roadmap that leads to having it, I'm happy with that.
It may also be worth considering a collaboration with those who have the expertise and are working on related ideas for the Fediverse already, like @soatok
@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.
@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?
@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 it's great that you've shared this question. It's a good example of feature prioritization tradeoffs.
For me, encrypted DMs wouldn't matter in Mastodon. As a rule, I don't share things here privately that I wouldn't want to be made public.
... and that's mainly because (as you point out) DMs appear in the public timeline. It's such a confusing UI choice that I'm VERY careful about what I write in DMs here. 😜
@jarango exactly! For me PMs are a convenience. I don't personally need it. But there are folks working on it in a FEP but my understanding is that it is fediverse wide not just Mastodon (as it should be!)
Given how hard it'll be to do this I'll like to clean things up and not wait for the more secure option (especially if most use cases don't require it)
@scottjenson here's another way to put it: for me, unless DMs are shown separately from the public timeline, then 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.
@scottjenson I can imagine encryption would be a very important feature for lots of folks drawn to the Fediverse.
@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)
@scottjenson it probably should, lord knows what people would send; passwords, identity materials, tokens, etc
@scottjenson I think it would be fine, but I guess you'd still need to solve some design and architectural questions up front if you *know* you're going to do encryption in the end.
@neal yes! Good point. We already do PMs however so we'd start with fixing these
@scottjenson One thing that probably needs to go away is the ability to accidentally drag someone into a conversation by mentioning them. That flexibility is *dangerous* for private messages.
@neal OOOOOh, that's a cool point! Thank you. What are you suggesting, that PMs are ONLY 1:1?
@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.
@neal I will be thinking ALOT about this comment. Thank you for explaining it. Very much appreciated.
@scottjenson I'm a fan of prioritizing the DM experience first.
wrt encryption, part of the challenge is how to interpret "private." Instead of the, "Who can see this?" default posture of Mastodon, this starts to ask something like, "Who cannot see this (beyond the addressed person/people)?"
@earth2marsh I'm not sure I follow, can you explain this default posture a bit more and what you'd like to see a bit more?
Deliver UX improvements first, technical improvements later. The law of low-hanging fruit.
Encrypted messaging would be nice to make this a place for social organising as the US and other countries become more authoritarian.
@scottjenson If messages were encrypted, I think it would be really important that there is a very clear distinction between encrypted and unencrypted posts. Using the same part of the UI for both encrypted and unencrypted messages with the only distinction being a hard to understand setting behind a button I think invites confusion as to what the precise security guarantees are.
@scottjenson I was actually just thinking about why private mentions are even needed when there are other options like email for private and sensitive discussions between folks. I guess I never truly understand why they are needed in a public social network in the first place? Just leftover from Twitter precedent?
@scottjenson
As critical as encrypted email.
(I realize this doesn't answer your question, but it's a very similar thing)
@scottjenson I think just knowing that the DMs are not encrypted is enough IMHO. If you want something encrypted use Signal.
@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.)
@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.
@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.
@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.
@phillycodehound @scottjenson I was going to say that I pretty much feel the same, but on the other hand, Bluesky *kind of* has this feature now already?
Maybe something like this would work here as well rather than built-in?
sort of-- bsky is just verifying/confirming a self-attested Germ identifier. and no android yet, so only half of bsky users in the US and far less outside US.
@stefan @phillycodehound @scottjenson
@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.
