This _would_ likely go down in history as one of the all-time great rebranding disasters, except that there are so _many_ bad decisions that it's hard to pinpoint blame on the rebrand.
I don't know many humans that have actually moved to it, but I know there's a tonne of influencers that have.
Instagram shows a snippet of sensationalist posts from X within the app. You used to be able to open the post and see it in the browser, now you must download the app.
I don't get it. X is much, much better now that the insane levels of (one-sided) censorship are gone. There are actually different opinions now. I don't really see any objectionable content - it all depends on who you follow and what posts you like. You can choose to only see posts from people you follow if you prefer. And you can create different lists of users for different topics and only see post from a specific list. It's all up to you. It all feels more vibrant now.
Also, I have seen in other news that engagement has gone up a lot, though perhaps not the number of users.
lol. I think you live in your little bubble. I’ve used Twitter for a while, there were always a wide range of opinions. Only difference now is that there are extremist opinions posts amplified. And Elon sets the tone. When you have the owner of a site posting race science, it clearly shows the site is one sided. If you like it, you like it but I think Twitter is clearly dying. I think social media in general will hit a downturn over the next decade
Why did people ever think Larry Ellison and Saudi princes would give Elon Musk money to help a platform that had a strong track record of enabling people power movements like OWS, Arab Spring, and BLM?
Don't people follow the money any more?
Come on now. Everything Musk has done has made the platform less attractive. Everything. It's a long list of idiocy. Firing key talent, breaking things, pissing off advertisers over and over, pissing off users, breaking the blue checks, the awful rebranding, etc.
Why are supposedly smart people seriously thinking that this isn't deliberate? I really don't get it. It's plain as day.
I am absolutely sure it's not deliberate because Musk renamed it to x.com. He's been looking to use that name for years and he wouldn't have renamed Twitter if he was planning on destroying it.
No, I think it's easier to say that a billionaire who surrounds himself with sycophants and ketamine end up making a lot of stupid mistakes.
I don't know if that's true. In order to be sure, we'd need to have a billionaire surrounded by just sycophants, and then just ketamine, and finally one surrounded by neither, and see how they fare. Really, to be sure, we'd want to have a large dataset, so we need a whole bunch of billionaires to take part in this experiment. Of course, finding willing billionaires will be hard, so instead we'll need to create some willing billionaires for this to happen. I volunteer to be one of them, so I'll just need a $1,000,000,000 dollars for my part in this experiment. (And maybe syncophants and ketamine, depending on which group we want me to be a part of.)
this sounds like GPT nonsense written to defend billionaires and deflect the discussion.
that wealthy and powerful people have sycophants and live in their own universes is heavy documented throughout history, in various cultures and countries -- Ming Emperors, Roman Caesars, Incan Kings, etc.
I mean, maybe it's a grand conspiracy, but Occam's Razor says it's more likely to just be incompetence. Generally when a rich idiot buys a business they don't understand but have strong opinions about, and ruins it, there's no conspiracy involved. Now, mind you, this happens more frequently with, like, bars and restaurants and things than with multi-billion-dollar social networks.
That's a good maxim, but when all the behavior points in the same direction it becomes facile to cling to it. A stupid person's decisions wouldn't be so consistent.
You think the richest man in the world, along with his ultra-wealthy Saudi and mega-Zionist backers, are genuinely championing free speech as Musk so often claims? Puh-lease.
The simplest explanation here is malice.
Otherwise you have to believe that the wealthiest people in the world, experienced business people with the world's best paid advisors, are destroying Twitter through sheer business incompetence. I don't buy it for a second and I'm shocked that people really believe this is just simple stupidity.
Attributing the destructive actions of well-known gaslighting lying billionaires to stupidity is honestly one of the weirdest things I can imagine. Sure, they make mistakes - but repeatedly, over and over, for years, and only with this one company? ... Nah.
"Only with this one company" is quite the statement on its own. Elon's blunders are numerous and across most of his companies, they are not limited to Twitter.
Wouldn't it have been more effective for him to have just closed it on day one? Why leave it around for years, and have 75% of the users still there? That's being pretty incompetent at destroying it.
Overly blatant actions like that have a tendency to rile people up to tipping points.
Then there's the money - closing it day 1 leaves money on the table.
There's the ego. Even Musk fan boys would have a hard time swallowing the wilful destruction of a beloved (and expensive) site.
For those and other reasons (anigbrowl hit the nail on the head!), it's far easier to just gut all the parts that made the platform a threat to the mega-yacht class.
> There's a word for this: "Plausible deniability".
There's a word for _this_: "self-sealing" [0].
A believer in a conspiracy theory, when presented with evidence contrary to the conspiracy theory, will often "reinterpret it as originating from the conspiracy" [1], or otherwise treat it "as further evidence for the conspiracy" [1].
The simplest explanation for elmu acting like an uninformed, out-of-touch narcissist is that is who he is. Many narcissists genuinely believe they are pro-free-speech even while they attack speech they dislike. Toss him on the pile.
At this point it's pretty clear that when Elon Musk talks about "free speech" he means the freedom to spread right-wing speech without consequence. I honestly believe a lot of what he's doing is, in his mind, liberating the site from the "woke mind virus" he believes turned his daughter trans. Most of the rest is boredom, because I also don't believe he really cares about the platform. He didn't even really want it, but he's stuck with it, so he's mostly just screwing around.
If you interrogate Musk's action from the point of view of the bored, redpilled sociopath behind the mask of a brilliant entrepreneur playboy genius engineer, a lot of his decisions make sense.
... I mean, the Saudis, and the likes of Ellison, invest in dumb shit all the time! Like, Ellison invested in Theranos. He has a track record in investing in nonsense.
(I don't understand how Theranos wasn't more damaging to the "rich people are magical super genius investors" meme common on here, but here we are.)
> experienced business people with the world's best paid advisors
All the advisors in the world are no use if you don't listen to them because you think you know better.
I deleted my account. Using the app is insufferable because the majority of the posts are NSFW which are usually meant to promote OnlyFans accounts, or show liveleak-esque videos, etc The replies under individual posts are like timeline of their own filled with posts completely unrelated posts.
Elon Musk took Twitter, chewed it up, and out came this unrecognizable, good for nothing piece of shit app that I’ll never use again. I hope SpaceX and Tesla don’t get the same treatment.
The name X being one if them. It's not even possible to search for Twitter anymore because the name is so generic.