[lotsofpulp]

It is crazy to me too. When I was younger, I thought how great it is that we can use websites as a cheap and easy way to authenticate or reasonably assume the authenticity of what was written or said, and here we are using screenshots of text on twitter as evidence.

[a-dub]

it seems the maladaptive images of text thing is being used to work around the 140 character limit rather than any sort of authentication here.

it's pretty funny where you see this and twitter "threads" of like 14+ posts.

life is complicated, 140 characters is not enough.

[dylan604]

What about websites provided something as authentic to you? The not-knowing how easily websites are to make and that anybody can put anything on them? Since you specifically stated "when younger", I'm assuming you no longer feel the same way. Did getting into tech/dev squash the dream of what the internet could have been? It did for me

[lotsofpulp]

Presumably, the website has a history or reputation (such as Stripe or Plaid’s official website). I guess Twitter might serve the same function, especially since this is a real person posting under their supposedly verified account, but I do not use Twitter, so for me, it is less easy to verify the source.

A better example is the tech emails twitter account that posts screenshots. How would I know if they are fake or not?

I would think a website with links to the source material such as the court filings showing the emails on a government website would be preferable.