>>13725503 (pb)
This anon claims that the BV literally posted memes with falsified filenames that made them look like screenshots from Firefox.
>>13725546 (pb)
>You retards are so retarded.
>Take a screenshot with firefox and download instead of copy to clipboard. See what it is named.
Here the BV replies to prior anon and proposes a test.
I figured I'd try it out.
The first image is the graphic posted by the BV right there.
He seems to have used the screenshot function in Firefox to save the very post he is replying to.
I tried the exact same thing.
I have multiple browsers installed and updated within the past two weeks.
Firefox has a screenshot function that you can access from a right-click menu.
Right click around the post you want.
You'll then be given the option of selecting one of various "logical" regions of the page.
Find the one that contains exactly the post you are looking for, then click the DOWNLOAD button that will appear after the region is highlighted.
I did that and the result is the second image.
Note the filename is ALMOST parallel to the BV's filename.
The first "difference" is no difference.
The first part of the filename informs as that it results from a screenshot on a particular date.
But I took my screenshot "today" (5/23 right now), and the BV seemingly took it when it was still 5/21 on his device.
And then the second part of the filename is obviously the final portion of the page title of the ENTIRE BREAD.
But now compare the BV's filename with my filename: the BV is missing the # ("hash" symbol).
That is VERY ODD, since the title of an html page is HARD CODED in the HTML. (If you've spent at least one hour in your life learning html, you know this.)
And if you load THAT page or other pages, you can SEE the HASH symbol in the page title.
(And I should note that is a very STRANGE omisssion, given how the BV repeatedly claims to be viewing "hashes"… hmmm)
But there is another difference…. note how the BV's filename has a "1" at the end.
That "1" was not part of the bread title (and so not part of the page title).
But you may wonder whether that is just an auto-renaming fluke… surely you have tried to save the same image twice and it might get auto-renamed via appending a number at the end?
I tried that with Firefox screenshot…. no go.
I merely got informed that I had a file with that name already there, and was asked if I wanted to replace it.
Finally… and I almost missed this one myself… note how the BV's filename has underscores instead of space characters (in the "page title" portion of the filename). Mine has space characters. And his filename also replaces the dashes in the "Screenshot date" portion with underscores. (Actually, now that I am thinking, for all I know the underscores in the second part might be an 8kun artifact, or even the underscores in the first part. I know at some point they started omitting many non-alphanumeric characters in filenames, and (I think) replacing them with underscores. But I'll leave this comment here as I am also pretty sure Q once "posted" an image that appeared to have an underscore as its name.) (Yep, checked… Q3987)
Very easy to miss since these "mean" the same thing in this context…. but the issue is whether the BV posted filenames that were autogenerated by the Firefox screenshotter. Or not.
tl;dr:
BV proposed a test.
I ran the test.
BV failed.