When did we get away from saying “X - formerly known as Twitter” ? I liked seeing that gentle nudge in every headline.
No we’re past that point. I’d much rather call it X and have the people left on that awful network swallow the jagged X pill instead of kidding themselves into thinking they are still on Twitter.
They are Xers now.
EX-twitter.
I still prefer ‘Xitter’
I liked Roman Numeral Ten.
It’s better to call it X and not continue to soil the Twitter name.
Twitter was always shit.
Like all social media.
Yes, but at least it wasn’t X.
When the domain name changed
It’s still twitter, the place for twits, like Elon.
I still get emails from my dormant account, and according to my Gmail, the sender is, “X (formerly Twitter),” so I don’t think we’re done with that yet.
I genuinely hope this platform burns to the ground.
I already lost all faith in it a long time ago, but kept my account to occasionally respond to a friend, or just look at feeds i don’t follow.
When he publicly reinstated fascists though, that was the last drop in the ocean of issues
The moment Musk fired engineers, I removed my account. Then I watched Twitter integration fail for a few applications Ive worked on, and removed that login/access.
From there, I watched multiple services fail. Ive watched spam bots take over. I watched drama after drama, Musk demanding weird choices like his tweets get priority.
It’s such a mess.
Honestly I’m surprised it lasted this long since Musky bought it.
The biggest loss here is that I follow a lot of artists on Twitter and when it goes kaput I won’t have easy access to follow them.
Any chance they move to the fediverse?
Probably near zero chance. Fediverse is dead empty compared to the alternatives, so not ideal if they want to reach out to their fans.
I’d rather store my food in Jeffrey Dahmer’s fridge than my money with Elon Musk’s company.
That’s why he needed such a high compensation package from tesla lol.
According to the article, the revenue is down 40%…But the costs are also way down? So this title is totally misleading, and a bunch of Lemmies are out here celebrating because they didn’t put 2 and 2 together.
Well yeah, but means the platform is not growing
How much more growth could Twitter have anyway?
Anyone who was interested either had one or had sworn it off well before Musk got involved.
The only thing that changed for me personally was I could previously see tweets from people without having an account, now I can’t, so I don’t click on twitter links at all. All of the businesses and public services previously announcing things on Twitter do it elsewhere now anyway for that reason.
Mr/s. financial expert, how much is way down? How does the cost vs revenue compared? Is it a net positive or negative. I’ll wait for you to put 2 and 2 together to see if I celebrate or not yet.
X lost half a billion dollars in the first quarter of 2023. Odd that the financial expert didn’t mention this even though it is literally in the same sentence as the “40% drop in revenue” statement in the article.
good
good riddance, black banana asylum. you won’t be missed.
People complain about twitter but I know of no other social media that’s as informative and uncensored on current topics like the American genocide in Gaza or their war in the Ukraine.
On the one hand that’s good and on the other it makes misinformation extremely easy. Misinformation spreads like wildfire on Twitter and the corrections don’t. The corrections get buried in “nuh uh, YOU lie” bot spam unless it gets the community notes treatment.
I prefer that than someone making my decisions for me and censoring.
Misinformation is already all over the mainstream news so…
False equivalence between Twitter news and mainstream news. Mainstream news has to verify their sources and have a reputation to protect. They retract stories that turn out to be false. As you saw with Dominion, mainstream news has money to protect from slander lawsuits too. It’s not perfect and there is certainly bias, but on Twitter there are no guardrails for misinformation besides community notes.
Mainstream news has to verify their sources and have a reputation to protect.
Well this is just a wildly wrong claim. The mainstream news could tell you that the Sasquatch is real and is behind Russiagate and people would believe it and not give a shit when both are found to be false. Where is Peng Shaui, the Uighur genocide, the invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked”, Israel has a right to defend itself, Hamas raped women, Hamas beheaded babies… These are all things that have been proven wrong and the vast majority of people still believe them. The MSM is just propaganda. It doesn’t even have community notes. There’s no slander laws between states.
You call my claim wildly wrong and have only this to say?
You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of newsrooms. That you can point to the instances in which they were wrong does nothing to argue that they don’t do their best to verify sources, you’re missing the fact that it’s hard sometimes, missing the fact that mainstream outlets retract statements that turn out to be false later and hedge their bets with wording. Dan Rather lost his career over an unverified source. The NBC headline about the beheaded babies literally says “Unverified reports” in the title.
I think you should read this article about the difficulties of getting the news right in the 24 hour news cycle and educate yourself instead of spewing knee-jerk nonsense which your argument fails to prove. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology
