True. In the meantime, I'll try adding my Matrix address on my profile and let's see if that will encourage people to use that channel instead of direct messages.
and while we don't have that, people could use a service that gives them an unified account for both #matrix and #mastodon instances, like communick.com. #shamelessplug
The #Mastodon server and #Matrix homeserver don't have to be colocated. E.g. you could be on mymastodon.example.com and hook it up to your matrix a/c on matrix.org. The larger #ActivityPub instances could use a small Matrix homeserver for it users without a declared matrix address, and automatically create a matrix a/c for them for the sole purpose of DMing.
The architectural possibilities are quite wide, I suspect.
that would be hugely blotted server wise, and mastodon is #4opens project so encryption is not a core part and would make the white lie of security this was built on, hard to maintain.
It works because it's #openweb to start to move to #closedweb would make this likely not work anymore.
matrix is a gold #4opens project but has 2 issues it's a defacto open "industrial" standard and it has semi opaque governance issues. Not big problems.
The issue is pushing #closedweb thinking into a #openweb project. Why do we need to add secure DM's to mastodon, exactly, and what would be added by this and what would be lost?
Let's look at an example, backups and security, currently on #mastodon and the whole #Fediverse the is an understanding that nothing is actually private (ok mastodon keeps telling white lies about this, i don't blame them) so we trust our admins not to spy, and we don't stress about the lossyness of it all.
Add the security of secret chat, and you add a whole another stress to running an instance. Why do we need to do this?
@Hamishcampbell in what way is matrix.org/foundation and spec.matrix.org semi-opaque (or a de facto standard)? :/ (we’re also proposing Matrix to IETF, but even if we weren’t, the Matrix Foundation is very much a real standards entity - just as much as the XSF or even W3C)
The issue is pushing #closedweb thinking into a #openweb project. Why do we need to add secure DM's to mastodon, exactly, and what would be added by this and what would be lost?
@eibhear Secure DMs mean that people can only run native clients, and that the web interface becomes useless for DMs. Most security people that I know of regard cryptography with JavaScript in the browser as a joke in poor taste.
If you want secure DMs then just use apps which have been designed for that purpose.
That would be great. Already at #Socialcoop we use Matrix for operational discussions. It would be great to see the two services integrated more tightly.
At @medlab we also use Matrix and Mastodon together with integrated user management through @cloudron
Hans van Zijst
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •METADESTROYER !! (He/Him)
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Lars
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •MTRNord (they/them)
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Introduction | Kazarma - Documentation
docs.kazar.maÉibhear 🔭 reshared this.
x0r
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Raphael Lullis
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Communick: social media and messaging hosting that respects you and your privacy
communick.comÉibhear 🔭 reshared this.
Éibhear 🔭
Unknown parent • •The #Mastodon server and #Matrix homeserver don't have to be colocated. E.g. you could be on mymastodon.example.com and hook it up to your matrix a/c on matrix.org. The larger #ActivityPub instances could use a small Matrix homeserver for it users without a declared matrix address, and automatically create a matrix a/c for them for the sole purpose of DMing.
The architectural possibilities are quite wide, I suspect.
vagabond
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •that would be hugely blotted server wise, and mastodon is #4opens project so encryption is not a core part and would make the white lie of security this was built on, hard to maintain.
It works because it's #openweb to start to move to #closedweb would make this likely not work anymore.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to vagabond • •vagabond
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •matrix is a gold #4opens project but has 2 issues it's a defacto open "industrial" standard and it has semi opaque governance issues. Not big problems.
The issue is pushing #closedweb thinking into a #openweb project. Why do we need to add secure DM's to mastodon, exactly, and what would be added by this and what would be lost?
#4opens
vagabond
in reply to vagabond • • •Let's look at an example, backups and security, currently on #mastodon and the whole #Fediverse the is an understanding that nothing is actually private (ok mastodon keeps telling white lies about this, i don't blame them) so we trust our admins not to spy, and we don't stress about the lossyness of it all.
Add the security of secret chat, and you add a whole another stress to running an instance. Why do we need to do this?
vagabond
in reply to vagabond • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to vagabond • • •epicanis likes this.
vagabond
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Bob Mottram ⁂
in reply to vagabond • • •@eibhear Secure DMs mean that people can only run native clients, and that the web interface becomes useless for DMs. Most security people that I know of regard cryptography with JavaScript in the browser as a joke in poor taste.
If you want secure DMs then just use apps which have been designed for that purpose.
Gerd Flaig
in reply to vagabond • • •@Hamishcampbell Integration would be done client side for end to end encryption, by defining how to link identities between ActivityPub and Matrix.
Gained: privacy
Lost: ability to spy
Nathan Schneider
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •That would be great. Already at #Socialcoop we use Matrix for operational discussions. It would be great to see the two services integrated more tightly.
At @medlab we also use Matrix and Mastodon together with integrated user management through @cloudron
Éibhear 🔭 reshared this.