• Introduction:
  • Paragraph 2 sentence 2: ("The book companion..."): sentence seems not quite right, like you edited it but not completely?
• Part 1:
  • Penn Station:
    • Quote from Marco Arment: "close thing" ➔ "closed thing" (or possibly add "sic" if that's what he said)
  • Pulled away from blogs: penultimate paragraph "more healthy" ➔ "healthier"?
  • Leaving twitter:
    • I was a bit confused by which quadrant Twitter was encouraging. I guess you mean lower left. But in the post you link to, they say they're encouraging everything except upper right.
    • "Twitter felt they need" ➔ "Twitter felt the need" (or possibly "Twitter felt they needed")?
    • incapsulate ➔ encapsulate
    • complimentatry ➔ complementary (or possibly add "sic" if that's what he wrote).
  • App.net:
    • lessoned ➔ lessened
    • (Final) "it's" ➔ "its"
  • Interview with Leah Culver
    • you you ➔ you
  • General: Given that the book's been a while in the making, I'm wondering if it would be useful to put dates on the interviews (even approximate dates). It feels like some of the intervies might have been done a while before the book was/is published, and it might give more context?
• Part 2:
  • Foundation
    • "Now, 20 years later, my blog is older than only a handful of the hundreds that I read regularly." Do you mean the reverse: maybe, "... older than all but a handful ..."? The setup seems to suggest your blog is now old (which it is, really), and the sentence as written seem both to contradict that setup, and be unlikely.
  • Syndication
    • Last paragraph: You might not agree, but there's a convention in writing that numbers less than 10 are usually written out. I think "two" would read better than 2 in the last paragraph.
  • Introducing Micro.blog
    • I was very surprised to see you describe Micro.blog as "transitional". For me, the primary connotation of "transitional" is transient, like a transitional government or a transitional phase — one that doesn't stay around. You clearly mean it in the sense of being between, and sharing some aspects of both. You might consider deleting "a transitional platform," so it just reads "Because Micro.blog is a bridge between...", which wouldn't have this slightly unforunate connotation.
  • External Blogs with WordPress
    • "WordPress is used by 35% of web sites on the internet." I feel as if this statement (a) needs a citation and (b) ideally needs "as of 2022" (or whatever), though a citation would help with that too. If it were me (which, of course, it isn't), I think I'd also say "According to...", since it's hard even to imagine a reliable methodology for assessing these sorts of statistics. Of course, many of the statements in the book are true at the point in time they are written, and may be invalidated, but this feels particularly like a snapshot.
  • Alternative Platforms
    • Jekyll:
      • well-supported ➔ well supported
      • new blog post ➔ new blog posts
      • in to ➔ into
      • Personally, I think the hyphen in "static-site generator" is redundant, though I can see the argument for it; I don't think I've ever seen it written like that before. (You use it consistently, which is good!)
    • The challenge with static sites
      • served directly without ➔ served directly, without
      • to call to ➔ to call
      • in to ➔ into (probably; though maybe you're emphasizing "check in" here)
      • under-the-hood ➔ under the hood
  • Micro.blog and Feeds
    • Timeline display rules: I think the last bullet point is meant to be two bullet points.
  • Blogging Workflow
    • escaped ➔ escaped. (Missing full stop (period!).)
    • Also wonder if "A limited subset of HTML" would be better than "Limited HTML", which sounds like something slightly different.
  • Why Indie Microblogging
    • Should be there a question mark in the title?
    • 2 ➔ two
    • Your quote from Ben Thomson doesn't make sense, does it? I checked Ben's article, and you've quoted him correctly, but it seems like his "haven't" should be "have" for the quote to be coherent. (Though I don't think they exactly have.) If Ben is arguing GDPR is ultimately good for them, how does that explain their not embracing it? Maybe I'll ping Ben.
  • Interview with Brent Simmons
    • farther in time ➔ further in time
• Part 3:
  • IndieWeb:
    • There's nothing wrong with it per se, but the bit starting 'The web can be “spread out” on multiple layers:' (a) only lists two layers, and (b) only lists one massive platform (Facebook) when it talks about a couple. (And let's face it: there's no one else as big as Facebook!) What about a third layer that is tools (so people can contribute to and read using tools of their choice), and a second massive platform (presumably Twitter, still, at this point)?
    • 3 ➔ three; but I'm starting to suspect you just prefer digits!
  • Permanence:
    • media is ➔ medium is (or possibly 'media are')
    • "And that we need multiple copies of something." Feels a bit tough on it's own. Maybe 'Kayle also emphasized thatwe need...'?
    • "Serve your photos and other media from the same domain name as your HTML, so that everything can be moved together." It's funny: I might have said the reverse. If you have your photos somewhere else, you can move your blog without moving them; and even if your blog disappears, your pictures shouldn't. I can see your point too; but I think I disagree. I suppose it depends a bit whether you own the place your text is, the place your photos are, both or neither! (Funnily enough, you kind-of make this point in the punultimate bullet poitn in the next section on silos.)
  • Silos:
    • Spurious underscore before Om's quote at the start.
  • Owning your content:
    • It's not a good foundation to ➔ It's not good to
  • Microformats
    • The link to your conference presentation isn't working (http://files.manton.org/archive/idiom/mactivity%5C_presentation/)
    • Microformats is a way ➔ Microformats are a way, or (better?), Microformats provide a way
    • Microformats actually predates ➔ Microformats actually predate
    • (It's pretty clear you're using Microformats as a singular noun consistently, but I don't quite understand why. Wikipedia and microformats.org and all the top hits I can find use them as plural, which feels right.)
  • Micropub
    • I found the XML-RPC example confusing, I think mostly because you used "app ID" and "blog ID" as placeholder values for integers, in an int field. I had forgotten (if I ever knew) how XML-RPC worked and assumed these must be parameter names and that you'd forgotten the values. After looking up XML-RPC, I can now see you're just using them as placeholders. I think it would be clearer to use 11111111 and 22222222 or whatever as placeholders and possibly put in xml-style comments to explain that these represent app ID and blog ID.
    • but has it’s own, WordPress-specific ➔ but has its own, WordPress-specific
    • 'to “drop in” an implementation of Micropub into an' ➔ 'to “drop in” an implementation of Micropub in an'; or (if you stand to lose “drop in”) more straightforwardly 'to drop an implementation of Micropub into an'
    • 'If there are at least a few client and server implementations' ➔ 'Once there are a few client and server implementations'
  • Webmention:
    • just 2 form-encoded parameters ➔ just two form-encoded parameters
  • Bridgy
    • The code on this Bridgy page seems to use a different theme from the code elsewhere; I find it quite jarring and hard to read. I suspect this might not be deliberate?
  • Blog archive format
    • 'depressing competition' ➔ 'limiting competition' or 'suppressing competition'? Depressing feels like slightly the wrong word to me.
    • 'but all in a different format' ➔ 'but each in a different format', or possibly 'but all in different formats'
    • This page feels like it could do with a little bit more formatting: there are a lot of plain "words" like "img" and "h-feed" that feel like they should be in a pink type-writer font.
  • Interview with Tantek Çelik and Aaron Parecki:
    • 'Tantek: Oh, that’s you’re going with that.' ➔ 'Tantek: Oh, that’s where you’re going with that.' (presumably; or put the where as [where] if he really missed it out; but that seems unlikely in speech.)
    • 'and I could not wrap my head around enough of it to even start anywhere coding.': I don't know if this is what he said, but the 'where' in 'anywhere' doesn't seem to fit. Maybe you could excise that one and use it for the missing 'where' I mention immediately above!
• Part 4:
  • Hypertext:
    • 'relegating actual web browsers as' ➔ 'relegating actual web browsers to the status of'
    • 'If there is no URL, there can no emphasize on custom' ➔ 'If there is no URL, there can be no emphasis on custom'
    • Photography:
      • Om quote: pricer lens ➔ pricier lenses
      • 'Instagram started to subtly shift to indirectly reward high-follower accounts': two consecutive split infinitives! Not sure I've ever seen that before. I'm sure you don't care, and you're probably right not to do so. But if you want to avoid a construct some people dislike, you could say 'Instagram started a subtle shift to reward high-follower accounts indirectly'.
    • UI Impacts Behaviour:
      • The section on Ghost seems slightly odd and a little unfair to me. I get that you think microposts are important, but is it really a problem that some blog platforms, like Ghost, are optimised for contentional, long-form blogging with mandatory titles? I feel you could make the same points, but much more positively, leaving it as Ghost isn't the right tool for a blogger who wants to write (some) microposts. Or even saying something like 'Ghost could have an option to allow short posts to be titleless without disabling the warning for users who find it useful.' (The attack seems out of keeping with the your usual Viva al difference / let a thousand flowers bloom attitude to things in the blogosphere that aren't hostile to the open web. Also, I have a number of long-form blogs that I would never use for Microposting, and (though I don't use Ghost), it would definitely be a mistake if the title were missing.
      • Adrian Villa's ➔ Adrian Vila's. Personally, I think I'd only put the link on the word "photos" too, but it's marginal.
      • 'The web would not be the same if it was just text. It would not be the same if it was just photos, or just links.' ➔ 'The web would not be the same if it were just text. It would not be the same if it were just photos, or just links.' (Subjunctive; though obviously, your book, your call.)
  • Using HTML:
    • 'blog posts work consistency on the web' ➔ 'blog posts work consistently on the web'
    • 'based off of' ➔ 'based on'
    • 'source:' bullet: styling missing on 'src' and 'type'
    • 'to quickly download' ➔ 'to download' (if you care about split infinitives)
    • 'those platforms’ format' ➔ 'those platforms’ formats'
  • Starting a new photo blog:
    • Copy HTML button: Has something gone wrong with the picture, or is that what you intended? If nothing has gone wrong, I think I'd suggest using a different image, because it kind of just looks like an error to me. (YMMV! Apologies if it's a favourite image!)
  • Sunlit and Photo Feeds:
    • Extra space after layouts/_default/list.photoshtml.html before period. (And is it really photoshtml.html?)
  • Linkblogging:
    • It's not wrong, at all, but I always find reuse hard to read. I would write re-use, which is much easier, IMO.
    • The sentence starting 'Micro.blog has deep support for bookmarks and blogging about books you’ve read' feels out-of-place in this chapter, which up to that point has been about Link blogs (in, indeed, that's what it's called). I get that you're kind-of linking to a book, but it feels like very abrupt switch. I was going to suggest either a new section or at least a subheading, but even the rest of that paragraph isn't really about books either. I guess the last four pagraphs, starting at the book bit feel a bit random and out of place here to me.
    • I would also say 'Quotebacks were introduced', not 'Quotebacks was introduced', but this is the same as the point about Microformat(s) earlier, so I suspect you just don't agree.
• Part 5:
  • Decentralization:
    • Both sentences in the pargraph starting 'Expanded in' are a little hard to read. I might rewrite as 'ARPANET expanded in the 1970s and 1980s and adopted the TCP/IP protocol used today. The expansion started by exending to Hawaii and Europe, and then everywhere else. By the early 1990s, file-sharing protocols like FTP and systems like Usenet were in widespread use, well before the invention of the web.'
    • 'hard to fully grasp' ➔ 'hard to grasp fully' (split infinitive)
    • 'While the data...it is run entirely by that platform' ➔ 'While the data...it is controlled entirely by that platform' (I think the "it" is data, right, which isn't really run? Or maybe you mean the data *centers* are run entirely by the platform?)
  • Notifications:
    • 'more well-suited' ➔ 'better suited'
    • 'Twitter today is fast and reliable.' LOL! I guess this was true when you wrote it, and perhaps less true every day post Elon.
    • 'send notification that a channel has changed' ➔ 'send a notification that a channel has changed' (though maybe it's a quote...in which case, I'd add '[a]' if it was missing.)
    • Should 'RSS Boxes' be 'RSS boxes'?
    • 'There could be an instance propagated with news junkies and commentariat.' So the quote is correct, but surely 'propagated' is the wrong word? I'm guessing Sarah meant 'populated'. I might be tempted to replace 'propagated' with '[...]'.
    • 'If App.net had come along during the backslash against Twitter’s increasingly tight hold on what developers could build, Mastodon was released after the narrative around harassment was clearly defined.': this seems like a slightly odd way to express this to me. (I mean, App.net *did* come along then.) I might rephrase slightly? Perhaps more as "If App.net was a reaction to..."
    • 'Many people getting started with Mastodon registered on' ➔ 'For many people getting started with Mastodon, they registered on'
    • Salmon protocol quote has too many properlys: '... propeller head nature of properly implementing various schemes properly.' Would prefer 'propeller-head nature' too.
    • 'that he had lead the development of.' ➔ 'whose development he had led.' (led not lead; and avoid the dangling preposition.)
    • 'GNU Social which' ➔ 'GNU Social, which'
    • 'easier for newcomers to understand who were fleeing Twitter' ➔ 'easier for newcomers who were fleeing Twitter to understand'
    • 'that other Mastodon-compatible services were built on' ➔ 'on which other Mastodon-compatible services were built.'
  • Mastodon:
    • (last sentence): Maybe 'a stable platform that other Mastodon-compatible services were built on.' ➔'a stable platform upon which other Mastodon-compatible services were built.'
  • Pixelfed: the third block quote has a hyperlink 1 that points to the page itself (https://book.micro.blog/pixelfed/#). Did this text perhaps get moved from somewhere else? Is the link needed? And even if it is, should it be a superscript or something?
  • ActivityPub:
    • It's super picky, but maybe a full stop at the end of the opening quote? (It did have one!)
    • I would delete the 'both' in the first paragraph. (Slightly odd with "as well as...")
  • Your blog:
    • 'usage spike at the beginning' ➔ 'usage spikes at the beginning'
    • Missing space before open parenthesis 'how today’s social networks are broken('; also the parenthesized link is dead (https://www.manton.org/2016/11/todays-social-networks-are-broken.html). I think it should be https://www.manton.org/2016/11/18/todays-social-networks.html. And the title in that post has ' rendering instead of apostrophe. Actually, I think it's a markdown link gone wrong, with the the wrong link!
    • Another badly formed link in the next paragraph. I think you mean https://www.manton.org/2016/11/22/fake-news-and.html, and again, maybe the Markdown went wrong?
    • In that paragraph, you say 'Mastodon is mostly a feature-to-feature clone of Twitter, so it has favorites, reblogs, and some of the popularity contest ramifications', which is fair. But, as you know, they deliberately omitted a quote post feature (as I understand it, implemented by disabled) specifically to try to avoid some of these problems. Might be worth a mention. This history might be relevant: https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2022/12/01/reflecting-on-twitter-white-flight-quote-tweet-tensions-at-mastodon/
    • 'Here are a sample of federated instances:' ➔ 'Here is a sample of federated instances:' (or 'are some sampled' instead of 'are a sample of' if you prefer).
    • (Not important, but these diagrams are sort of 'reverse video' compared with the ones you used in earlier sections. It doesn't matter, but is slightly jarring and looks inconsistent.)
    • [The two paragraphs starting 'Remember, most Twitter clones fail...' feels like Micro.blog's manifesto! Maybe it should be carved in stone bits on Micro.blog's home page or something!]
    • 'With the platform based on blogs, the worst case if Micro.blog doesn’t work out' ➔ 'Since the platform is based on blogs, the worst case if Micro.blog doesn’t work out'
  • WebSub:
    • The quote at the start is formatted a bit differently from the others; well, not so much the quote as the attribution. Shouldn't there be a gap before the text? and maybe the attribution should be right-justified?
  • Indie Readers:
    • (Your opening quote doesn't read quite right to me, though the quote is verbatim. I know you're pretty plugged into the IndieWeb crowd: maybe if you agree it's a bit clunky, you could get it improved and reincorporate the improved quote :-). I might suggest: “Modularity increases the chance that at least some of it can and will be re-used, improved, which you can then reincorporate.” ➔ “Modularity increases the chance that at least some of it can and will be re-used and improved; you can then reincorporate the improved version.”)
    • Looks like Monacle is shut down: https://aaronparecki.com/2016/04/26/3/monocle. (I think that's fine; but maybe worth mentioning.)
    • 'These server are based' ➔ 'These servers are based'
• Part 6:
  • Community:
    • The link to the podcast on True Ventures is broken. Might be this: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/matt-mullenweg-founder-of-wordpress/id1493017725?i=1000462582319? Or maybe you had a timestamp link? Or maybe it's another episode.
    • 'Many bloggers closed their comments and pointed people to reply on Twitter instead.' ➔ 'Many bloggers closed their comments and encouraged people to reply on Twitter instead.'
  • Replies:
    • The GET and JSON at the end are in the dark theme, again, unlike most of hte stuff in the rest of the book. I find some of it a bit hard/unpleasant to read.
  • Misinformation:
    • 'Facebook as the world’s largest platform intertwined' ➔ 'Facebook, as the world’s largest platform, intertwined'; and 'intertwined' feels slightly wrong to me, making it sound (even) more intentional that it probably is. Maybe 'was responsible for' or 'has become infamous for'?
    • The link to the Duncan Davison blog post is broken. I think it might have gone.
  • Unintended Algorithms:
    • Although I very much agree with the thrust of this, I think the detail is actually wrong. You say: 'The “algorithmic timeline” is a normal timeline, but with posts in an order that we can’t predict.' As well are re-ordering tweets, the algorithmic timeline includes promoted tweets, ads, tweets from suggested accounts etc., right? And other services, like TikTok and Facebook, as I understand it, choose content with even less regard to following relationships, don't they? (In fact, "timeline" is completely the wrong word for the display, isn't it, once it's not chronological. It's more a like a "feed display" or something. (I don't understand how anyone can stand non-chronological timelines, nor how they read it in reverse order. I'm strictly a forwards chronological completist!) In case you're interested, Simon Willison argues *for* an "algorithmic" approach on Mastodon, but a personal one for him on the Talk Python to Me Podcast, #390, Mastodon for Python Devs at 16:08: https://talkpython.fm/episodes/transcript/390/mastodon-for-python-devs#play-at. (I don't quite understand the URLs, but if you scroll down to 16:08, you can see the transcript for that second and hit the link to play the matching audio. But I can't figure out the URL to make it all just happen!)
    • 'Kara Wisher' ➔ 'Kara Swisher' (presumably).
  • Open gardens
    • 'The difference is that Twitter’s garden is poorly curated and full of weeds.' I'm surprised you imply that the (iOS) App Store is well curated. It's scam apps and gambling apps and games that eat money like it's going out of fashion.
    • It's not a huge deal, but (I think) you just start using the term 'tagmoji' without really defining it. I might just add something in: 'with suggestions for new emoji that Micro.blog should support.' ➔ 'with suggestions for new emoji (which we call *tagmoji* when used like this) that Micro.blog should support.'
    • 'reach s many' ➔ 'reach as many' (I presume)
    • 'fueled by algorithms unchecked' ➔ 'fueled by algorithms, and unchecked' (maybe)
  • Popularity contests:
    • 'shined a light' ➔ 'highlighted'?
    • '2 complementary transitions' ➔ 'two complementary transitions'
  • Banning users
    • 'Just as Microformats was a simpler' ➔ 'Just as Microformats were a simpler' (but I don't think you'll agree)
    • 'conspiracy theory-fueled site' ➔ 'conspiracy-theory-fueled site'
    • 'finally ran against' ➔ 'finally ran up against' or 'finally ran afoul of'
    • '...way at. First flagging Trump’s posts as inaccurate. Then ...' ➔ '...way at, first flagging Trump’s posts as inaccurate, then ...'.
    • 'Trump banned from Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The iOS app Parler banned from the App Store.' ➔ 'Trump was banned from Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The iOS app Parler was banned from the App Store.'
    • 'Banning would not be so severe if Twitter was intertwined more with the open web...'. Is it about intertwining? Would 'Banning would not be so severe if Twitter were more part of the open web...' be better?
  • Interview with Jean MacDonald:
    • PHD ➔ Ph.D. (or at least PhD)
    • "It’s a good place to find the people who post their photo first Micro.blog post.": I don't quite understand that sentence. Should it be 'first photo' rather than 'photo first'?
    • 'We try to make sure if there’s somebody puts something up that’s anything more than just like “hi”.' ➔ 'We try to make sure it’s there if somebody puts something up that’s anything more than just like “hi”.' ( I think.)
    • they’ve they’ve ➔ they’ve
    • in to ➔ into

Conclusion

• 'Bare with me' ➔ 'Bear with me'. Definitely the funniest/raciest typo in the book.
• I think this is rather a good opening to the conclusion (not the typo; the content of the first section of conclusion!)
• Breaking up Facebook
  • 'paranoia of' ➔ 'paranoia about', or perhaps 'paranoia regarding' or 'fear of'
  • That Cory Doctorow point about network effects in reverse as people leave Facebook is great. And, of course, we have seen this dramatically with Twitter recently. Might not be worth mentioning parenthetically even in a chapter about Facebook, since it's so graphic, recent and validating. (Though, TBH, there's nowhere natural in the current wording to drop it in; I think it would require a slight rewrite. Possibly something like 'In 2022, in the wake of Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, we've seen networks effects in reverse: every user who migrated from Twitter to the Fediverse made it easier for their friends and followers to do the same. Cory Doctorow anticipated this when he wrote for the Guardian in Febtuary 2022 about how...'
  • 'but on the problems' ➔ 'but as to the problems'
  • 'Platforms that have as many problems as Facebook does can always be improved' ➔ 'Platforms that have as many problems as Facebook can always be improved'
• 'There are so many people are on Twitter' ➔ 'Because, there are so many people on Twitter' (Add 'Because'; delete second 'are') Though, in fact, you make almost exactly the same point in the sentence after the quote, so maybe you only need one of the two?
• 'Bitcoin, untraceable' ➔ 'untraceable Bitcoin wealth' (or currency; or possibly Bitcoins)
• 'too long ago to be relevant to' ➔ 'too long ago to be fully capable of regulating'
• 'And too often I think we’ll be disappointed waiting.' ➔ 'Too often I think we’ll be disappointed waiting.' (It's not that I mind starting sentence with 'And': this one just doesn't really seem to follow on that way naturally.)
• 'the $5 billion fine': you were just talking abot the $1 billion fine. I think there have probably been both. But these feel inconsistent as written.
• 'Write.as': maybe hyperlink this, if only because it's hard to read and looks like a typo if you don't realise it's a name of company/website/service!
• 'for all its problem' ➔ 'for all its problems'
• 'we still haven’t taken enough advantage of.' ➔ 'still have more to offer.'
  • 'based on massive ad-based networks' ➔ 'based on massive ad networks' [I know what you wrote is probably slightly more accurate; but I think this reads better and is accurate enough!]
  • 'arguing' ➔ 'where he argued' (It's quite a long sentence that's a bit hard to parse. I think this makes it slightly easier. Or you might want to spit the sentence in two.)
  • 'an important part to focus on.' ➔ 'an important part.' or 'an important part on which to focus.'
• The way out
  • More vertical space after the chapter quote? And right-justify Robert Frost?
  • '...and it’s a fundamental part of the book I’m writing about microblogging.' This feels like an odd statement in the book. Almost as if you copied this from a blog post or something! Maybe 'and it’s a fundamental part of the thesis of this book.'
  • '2-3' ➔ 'two or three' (though this one is less objectionable than the bare '2's dotted about. If you want to leave it as digits, it would be nice to use an en-deash (–) instead of the hyphen (-) for the numeric range.
  • 'and can be complementary' ➔ 'and are complementary'.
• Sticking to the mission statement
  • 'not knowing which next bug fix moves us closer to our goal': would this be better as 'not knowing which additional feature moves us closer to our goal' (or 'feature request')? It feels to me like bug fixes are pretty much always desirable, at least in principle; it seems like it's feature creep/prioritization that is your real point here, no?
  • This URL is dead. 'https://macgenie.micro.blog/2018/04/10/a-guide-to.html' (the one linked as 'leaves certain features out on purpose'. In the previous chapter, that same phrase linked to https://help.micro.blog/t/what-s-the-difference-between-micro-blog-and-twitter/21. So maybe that's where it's gone?
  • 'We do want the community on Micro.blog to keep growing so that it’s more diverse and valuable to people, and for many more people to start new blogs that we can host on our platform.' This is fine, but I think it failed to deliver its message as clearly as it could. I think this might work better: 'Of cours want the community on Micro.blog to keep growing so that it’s more diverse and valuable to people, but we also want many more people to start new blogs that we can sensibly host on our platform.'

Fin ☐︎.