{"p":"","h":{"iv":"ROXSYW+cfvEbFHu5","at":"ocxplSQjdRC3tXEtB/9/wg=="}}

But also, in response to all the "what about e2e encryption" -- I would like that but I would *also* like a nice dedicated user interface for my activitypub DMs as they exist today. Would a custom client be more secure than my current DMs? no. would it be LESS secure? also no!

3
Share
Share on Mastodon
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
Glyph

@darius you could also have explicit support for bootstrapping into more secure messengers if you were doing this as a first-class thing. a lot of people (myself included) _mostly_ use social DMs as a way of getting off-platform onto Signal or similar

1
1y
Darius Kazemi

Further (and now I am ranting, sorry), I used email as an analogy specifically because it is insecure as shit but we use it every day

3
1y
Gracious Anthracite

@darius

My main thought with regards to "are fediverse DMs at all secure" was that the kind of people who seem to be interested in building IM clients always seem to be super into making it secure, and thus would probably prefer to go off and make a client for a more secure federated protocol, or make their own protocol because surely what the world needs is a 47th IM protocol that makes a slightly different set of choices than the preceding 46 that nobody's using. :ds_wink:

Getting all chat, public or private, on the same publicly-owned protocol is not a bad aim in and of itself. I just feel like "omg NO PRIVACY" is a thing everyone who makes these types of clients is going to be screaming about.

0
1y
Replies