Do y’all understand how easy it is to make a fake tweet from a screenshot? Like by inspecting the browser and changing the text? …. I don’t trust posts I can’t search up on archives. And if you do have a link, archive it (not in an image but using an reputable archiving service).

Jacky Alciné’s words are true, so I thought I’d illustrate.

The general principle here is: if you make a statement about someone or something other than yourself or your personal opinions, you need to back it up with a link to supporting material. “X said on Twitter” needs to be linked to that tweet. Leaving googling for your source as an exercise to your readers isn’t just merely convenient to you, it is actively destructive of the web. The web is links, and they’re a key piece of information for your readers to judge if what you tweeted/said/blogged might be signal or noise. No links means it’s likely noise and it will degrade your standing as a source of signals. No links is aiding and abetting the bots, trolls and fakesters, as it allows them to hide in more noise.

Adding a screen-shot as Jacky Alciné says is not enough ‘proof’, as they can easily be altered directly in your browser. An example:

Yesterday I posted my first Tweet from my recent brain implant. It was awesome! So awesome in fact, I made a screenshot of it to preserve the moment for posterity.

In reality I posted from Indigenous (see there’s a link there!), a mobile app that provides my phone with IndieWeb reading and publishing capabilities, which I syndicated to my Twitter account (see there’s another link!). Also awesome, but much less awesome than blogging from a brain implant.

The difference between those two screenshots, getting from true to fake, is that I altered the text of the Twitter website in my browser. Every browser allows you to see a website you visit in ‘developer’ mode. It is helpful to e.g. play around with colors, to see what might work better for your site. But you can also use it to alter content. It’s all the same to your browser. See this screenshot, where I am in the process of changing ‘Indigenous’ into ‘brain implant’

But, you say, tweets might have been deleted and grabbing a screenshot is a good way of making sure I still have some proof if a tweet does get deleted. That’s true, tweets and other content do get deleted. Like self-congratulatory tweets/VK/FB messages about the downing of MH17 by separatist supporting accounts, before it became clear a regular line flight was shot out of the air, and those accounts were quickly scrubbed (See Bellingcat‘s overview). Having a screenshot is useful, but isn’t enough. If only for the reason that the originator may simply say you faked it, as it can so easily be done in a browser (see above). You still need to provide a link.

Using the Web Archive, or another archiving site, is your solution. The Web Archive has preserving as much of the web and other online content as possible as its mission. It is a trustable source. They save web pages on their own initiative, but you can submit any URL for preservation yourself and it will immediately be saved to the archive. Each archived page has its own URL as well, so you can always reference it. (Many links in Wikipedia point to the archived version of a page from the point in time it was referenced in Wikipedia for this reason).

I submitted my tweet from yesterday to the Web Archive, where it now has a web address that neither I, nor Twitter can change. This makes it acceptable proof of what I did in fact send out as a tweet yesterday.

Fully in agreement with you Eli. To provide agency to potential IndieWeb adopters, it is needed to start from purposes and what things a person wants to achieve. Build a pathway from there, and provide the building blocks. Not start from the tech specs. Myself I am frequently lost in the IndieWeb woods, even if I have some tech knowledge, and am not easily thrown off by the need to hunt down clues in obscure fora for a fix to an issue. Too often too much knowledge is assumed on all things IndieWeb if you seem to have some knowledge about a tiny part of it.

Replied to Dear IndieWeb, it may be time to start considering the user, not just the technical spec. by Eli MellenEli Mellen

I’ve been working on a series of walkthrough posts that outline how to IndieWebify a WordPress site. I presumed the initial setup would be fairly straightforward because a) I have a vague idea of what I’m doing, and b) a suite of plugins already exists. Boy-howdy, was I wrong. (ಥ﹏ಥ)
I’ve…

During the introductions at IndieWeb Summit, Malcolm Blaney showed his site Unicyclic, which is set up as an IndieWeb reader. He has an overview page of recent IndieWeb related postings. To have your own postings incorporated, you need to follow his IndieWeb page and send it a WebMention. Upon receiving the WebMention it will look for a feed to follow on your own site. That sounded like a fun thing to try.

Just shared at the opening of IndieWeb Summit in Portland, some very interesting statistics about the use of Brid.gy.

Brid.gy is a service that lets you connect both ways to various silos and social media platforms. I for instance use it to post to Twitter from here, and provide back Twitter’s interaction to my own site.

What stands out is that there is linear steady growth. Also the closing down of Facebook’s API and the closing of Google Plus are nicely visible as ‘saw tooths’ in the graphs.

Bookmarked Bridgy stats update by Ryan BarrettRyan Barrett

Bridgy stats time!
Looking at the graphs, the elephant in the room is clearly the Facebook shutdown. It was Bridgy’s second largest silo, numbering 1477 users when we wer…