I know it's a minority view, but I'd be delighted if the word 'twitter' could be reclaimed by it's rightful owners - small birds everywhere. The english language lost a rather nice and useful word...
I know it's a minority view, but I'd be delighted if the word 'twitter' could be reclaimed by it's rightful owners - small birds everywhere.
The english language lost a rather nice and useful word with the rise of that social media platform, and it would be pleasing to get it back again.
I feel similar to the word "Apple". Wonder how Steve Jobs was allowed to register it in the first place! They took that word and then changed the very meaning of it.
I feel similar to the word "Apple". Wonder how Steve Jobs was allowed to register it in the first place!
They took that word and then changed the very meaning of it.
Trademarks are generally registered within a certain context, so presumably he registered the word apple only within the domain of technology companies or smth similar.
Trademarks are generally registered within a certain context, so presumably he registered the word apple only within the domain of technology companies or smth similar.
But trademarks should not be ideally granted for popular words in the dictionary, there is always the danger of the word usage itself changing if that company becomes very famous (and through that...
But trademarks should not be ideally granted for popular words in the dictionary, there is always the danger of the word usage itself changing if that company becomes very famous (and through that the impact on human communication).
"Sun" is another example, imagine the situation today if that company had become as famous as Apple! What would you be calling the orb that rises in the East then?
Edit
Yep, referring to the once glorious but now defunct Sun Microsystems here.
I don't think people have any problem referring to the fruit even after Apple's success, and I suspect the same would be the case for "Sun" and the celestial body. People are able to distinguish...
I don't think people have any problem referring to the fruit even after Apple's success, and I suspect the same would be the case for "Sun" and the celestial body. People are able to distinguish between different uses of a word in different domains, which is part of why trademarks have to specify which domains the word is being trademarked in. Even the word "tweet" is used perfectly clearly to refer to the sound birds make, with any confusion for posting on Twitter only present in deliberate attempts at humor.
This confused me, because (the) Sun is about as famous as Apple, at least in the UK: it's a very popular newspaper and online media outlet. In fairness, I'm not sure if they have a trademark, but...
"Sun" is another example, imagine the situation today if that company had become as famous as Apple! What would you be calling the orb that rises in the East then?
This confused me, because (the) Sun is about as famous as Apple, at least in the UK: it's a very popular newspaper and online media outlet. In fairness, I'm not sure if they have a trademark, but even if they had, I don't think anyone finds it difficult to differentiate between the newspaper and the real-life phenomenon.
From context they're probably referring to Sun Microsystems, which really illustrates the point that there were two large companies operating at the same time but in different contexts with their...
From context they're probably referring to Sun Microsystems, which really illustrates the point that there were two large companies operating at the same time but in different contexts with their own trademarks, and no one confused either for talking about astronomy.
Yeah, I should have written "this confused me for a moment" or something like that - I did remember that there were other Suns after a thinking about it for a bit! đ But yeah, exactly: having a...
Yeah, I should have written "this confused me for a moment" or something like that - I did remember that there were other Suns after a thinking about it for a bit! đ But yeah, exactly: having a trademark does not prevent anyone from using that trademark at all, it just prevents them from doing business using names that could be confused with your business.
I know, but the fact that multiple companies can exist at the same time, with names that represent common everyday words, suggests that trademarks do not strip us of our vocabulary in quite the...
I know, but the fact that multiple companies can exist at the same time, with names that represent common everyday words, suggests that trademarks do not strip us of our vocabulary in quite the way the previous poster was suggesting.
There are probably a handful of exceptions to that rule though. Apple is the classic one which I already mentioned. The first thing that comes to my mind on hearing that word is a MacBook or...
trademarks do not strip us of our vocabulary in quite the way the previous poster was suggesting.
There are probably a handful of exceptions to that rule though. Apple is the classic one which I already mentioned. The first thing that comes to my mind on hearing that word is a MacBook or iPhone, not some fruit. And I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one in that category!
Another popular example is Flask, the famous Python framework. Again willing to bet there will be hardly any Python programmer who will even think of that "water jug thingy" which a flask really is!
And why did I forgot Amazon! How many folks even know today that there is an amazing deep forest terrain in South America by that very name?
I honestly have no idea what youâre talking about. Words are used in sentences. You have context. If I say, âput the diced apples in the risotto â no one whoâs serious is going to wonder âdicing...
I honestly have no idea what youâre talking about. Words are used in sentences. You have context.
If I say, âput the diced apples in the risotto â no one whoâs serious is going to wonder âdicing iPhones? Oh my!â
What is an actual context in which you would confuse Apple the company with
apple the fruit that isnât a standup comedy routine?
Think about it this way: If word usage entirely depended on just context, why would these companies fight tooth and nail for trademarks? They may as well think, "My Coke is this huge red can of...
Words are used in sentences. You have context.
Think about it this way: If word usage entirely depended on just context, why would these companies fight tooth and nail for trademarks? They may as well think, "My Coke is this huge red can of cola drink, while their Coke is a scooter or motorcycle". Or in case of Elon Musk, "My X is a social media company while their X could be a porn product or whatever". But that's not how it works, try opening a "Coke Automobiles" or "Coke Laptops" and their lawyers will be all over you! Different context doesn't matter here.
Words are intrinsically and intimately linked to the feelings they evoke in people, and folks know this, especially the folks in PR, Marketing, etc. Adding a different context could drastically alter the other original context of that word too. In an alternate world where Steve Jobs wouldn't have happened, the word "Apple" would be evoking totally different feelings in me and you than now.
No, it does. You're just wrong on that one. It's in fact one, if not the biggest, factors in determining a trademark violation (see: lapp test). There ARE numerous trademarks over the same word or...
But that's not how it works, try opening a "Coke Automobiles" or "Coke Laptops" and their lawyers will be all over you! Different context doesn't matter here.
No, it does. You're just wrong on that one. It's in fact one, if not the biggest, factors in determining a trademark violation (see: lapp test).
There ARE numerous trademarks over the same word or branding that exist at once because they are sufficiently different in market that no one would confuse them given context. If you had a company called, for example, "Coke Industries", which specialized in the production of the hydrocarbon, you would be fine, because no one in the market for sugary water wants to buy distilled coal.
Here's a concrete, real, and relevant examples:
Apple, the Steve Jobs one, owns the trademark for "Apple" w.r.g to computers
The company Apple Records owns the trademark for "Apple" w.r.g to music publishing
The company VKO Farms owns the trademark to "Apple" w.r.g to "clothing; fashion garments; footwear"
They all own it collectively because no one mistakes each other depending on the context.
Just because a company like Coke can overwhelm a new company with spurious lawsuits does not mean that is actually how the law works. (IANAL but) Microsoft, for example, rebranding to Coke...
Just because a company like Coke can overwhelm a new company with spurious lawsuits does not mean that is actually how the law works. (IANAL but) Microsoft, for example, rebranding to Coke Computer Industries would be entirely legal. It would be litigated for sure, but it would be legal. Microsoft and Coke are different industries, so a lawyer can argue that customers know through context which company it refers to. I searched Google for examples of this and got some good ones. The best was Delta Airlines, Delta Dental, and Delta Faucets. Another good one was Sysco and Cisco. So people do understand context, and the law enshrines this understanding of context into trademark law.
I do think you're in a minority on all of these to be honest. Never once have I confused Flask and flasks, Amazon.com and the Amazon river and/or rainforest. Actually Amazon is a good example...
I do think you're in a minority on all of these to be honest. Never once have I confused Flask and flasks, Amazon.com and the Amazon river and/or rainforest.
Actually Amazon is a good example here. People are able to say just "the Amazon" in a conversation and context usually makes it clear if they're talking about the rainforest or the river. Saying "the Amazon rainforest" in full makes you sound a bit like you're narrating a nature documentary.
Even if you think of those things first, that doesn't rob you of the ability to use the word for other things. I think of the programming language first when I hear "Python" because I work with...
Even if you think of those things first, that doesn't rob you of the ability to use the word for other things. I think of the programming language first when I hear "Python" because I work with it, but I can still use it to talk about snakes. I'm familiar with Flask, but I'm not confused when Nile Red uses the word in a chemistry video.
Moreover, this isn't even unique to trademarks. I studied linguistics in uni and was frequently frustrated when my searches for "IPA" turned up with the beer rather than the international phonetic alphabet. Multiple things having the same name can occasionally be annoying, but most humans are more than capable of handling that.
Trademark is not there to protect words. We can and should argue about how useful or just or current property laws are. The law however protects a private enterprise from competitors trying to use...
Trademark is not there to protect words. We can and should argue about how useful or just or current property laws are. The law however protects a private enterprise from competitors trying to use the same mark, any mark is fair game for registration.
Why is it a âdangerâ for a word usage to change? Word usage changes, thatâs part of how language works. People are perfectly capable from differentiating apple when used to refer to a technology...
Why is it a âdangerâ for a word usage to change? Word usage changes, thatâs part of how language works. People are perfectly capable from differentiating apple when used to refer to a technology company, or a fruit, or the Beatlesâ production company. They become homophones.
Heck, the meaning of the word changed when referring to the fruit itself. âAppleâ used to be a generic term for any starchy fruit that grows on a tree, it was basically branding that made the apple we know now synonymous with the generic term.
In the days of social media, that seems inevitable. There was (is?) a time where đ was co-opted as a white supremacy symbol. Language and its colloquial meanings will shift regardless of the...
there is always the danger of the word usage itself changing if that company becomes very famous
In the days of social media, that seems inevitable. There was (is?) a time where đ was co-opted as a white supremacy symbol. Language and its colloquial meanings will shift regardless of the copyright system.
I'm admittedly a bit biased on the apple example, but I have to disagree with them changing the meaning of the word. A lot of brands use common words. There are Dove soaps and Dove chocolates. I...
I'm admittedly a bit biased on the apple example, but I have to disagree with them changing the meaning of the word. A lot of brands use common words. There are Dove soaps and Dove chocolates. I don't confuse Subway sandwiches with subway stations. Staples stores can be a bit confusing when trying to find actual staples inside one though.
The word and fruit "apple" is so incredibly common, that I don't think Apple the tech company diluted its meaning. I'd argue that Twitter and Amazon did worse in that regard since those words are much more rarely used and only in specific contexts. Young kids have likely never heard of the Amazon rainforest, but know about Amazon the shopping website. They would definitely know about apples the fruit though.
How young are we talking? I would expect your average 10 year old to at least have heard of the Amazon river, and by extension the rainforest too. Like basic "geography is a thing" school lessons...
Young kids have likely never heard of the Amazon rainforest
How young are we talking? I would expect your average 10 year old to at least have heard of the Amazon river, and by extension the rainforest too. Like basic "geography is a thing" school lessons would use the Amazon and Nile as examples of rivers, Mt Everest as examples of mountains.
I was thinking as young as 2 or 3. Apples are pretty commonly used to teach kids about the letter A and the color red, after all. Apple slices and apple juice are also common snacks and drinks for...
I was thinking as young as 2 or 3. Apples are pretty commonly used to teach kids about the letter A and the color red, after all. Apple slices and apple juice are also common snacks and drinks for young children. Kids are basically guaranteed to encounter that word outside the context of the tech giant even before they enroll in school.
On the other hand, I expect kids to be more familiar with Amazon the company than the river or rainforest by their first year of school. The company definitely comes up a lot more often just from their parents talking about shopping on there, watching shows on Amazon Prime, etc.
With the state of education in some parts of the US though... Would sadly not be surprised if some 10-year-olds thought the Amazon river and rainforest were named after the company.
Apple Computers was actually sued and had multiple disputes with regards to trademark infringement on the term Apple. Not because of anything relating to the fruit, but because The Beatles beat...
Apple Computers was actually sued and had multiple disputes with regards to trademark infringement on the term Apple. Not because of anything relating to the fruit, but because The Beatles beat them to it.
Fun thing that came out of this: they added a system sound to macOS called Sosumi ("so, sue me") in response to a lawsuit with Apple Corps over their sounds being too melodic.
Fun thing that came out of this: they added a system sound to macOS called Sosumi ("so, sue me") in response to a lawsuit with Apple Corps over their sounds being too melodic.
I always read such an X as Χ, pronounced "chi". With Twitter, this could end up "Chitter" (close enough to the original), but I too lean more towards "Shitter".
I always read such an X as Χ, pronounced "chi". With Twitter, this could end up "Chitter" (close enough to the original), but I too lean more towards "Shitter".
Did they reverse this? For me, right now, twitter.com stays as twitter.com and x.com stays as x.com, with neither redirecting to the other. I've pretty much stopped visiting there since the...
Did they reverse this? For me, right now, twitter.com stays as twitter.com and x.com stays as x.com, with neither redirecting to the other. I've pretty much stopped visiting there since the X-odus, but I'm curious if they made and then suddenly reversed this change since that would seem very on-brand for Musk.
For me it's still redirecting which means they haven't reversed. It could be a case of DNS propagation still pending for your country/region. After some time, twitter.com will start redirecting to...
For me it's still redirecting which means they haven't reversed. It could be a case of DNS propagation still pending for your country/region. After some time, twitter.com will start redirecting to x.com.
DNS propagation is usually faster than that. For me, right now, twitter.com stays as twitter.com and x.com stays as x.com, with neither redirecting to the other.
DNS propagation is usually faster than that. For me, right now, twitter.com stays as twitter.com and x.com stays as x.com, with neither redirecting to the other.
In that case, I'm really intrigued! What region are you from? At least here in India, "twitter.com" is getting redirected to "x.com" since last couple of days. And based on Elon Musk's recent...
In that case, I'm really intrigued! What region are you from?
At least here in India, "twitter.com" is getting redirected to "x.com" since last couple of days. And based on Elon Musk's recent tweet, the same must be happening in USA also.
Rebranding is a risky move. Rebranding one of the most recognizable brands in history into a one letter name isn't risky at all. Risk implies a possibility of success.
Rebranding is a risky move. Rebranding one of the most recognizable brands in history into a one letter name isn't risky at all. Risk implies a possibility of success.
It's still twitter to me. X is a letter, not a name. That said, it's not like I use it. There's a post here or there I might get linked to but otherwise it's been dead to me for quite some time....
It's still twitter to me. X is a letter, not a name. That said, it's not like I use it. There's a post here or there I might get linked to but otherwise it's been dead to me for quite some time.
Btw is Twitter trademark up for grabs? It'd be funny if someone started up a new Twitter that did the same as the old minus the crazy rich guy with a fascination for X's.
I find myself pushed more towards BlueSky by the day. Shit, Twitter tried to force me back on to the asinine âFor Youâ algo-hell again just this morning.
I find myself pushed more towards BlueSky by the day. Shit, Twitter tried to force me back on to the asinine âFor Youâ algo-hell again just this morning.
You have to actively follow people or go looking for feeds. For example I follow a Spec List of SFF authors and a Disability feed of activists, and I've slowly followed more people as I go. The...
You have to actively follow people or go looking for feeds. For example I follow a Spec List of SFF authors and a Disability feed of activists, and I've slowly followed more people as I go.
The "Following" page is literally just that, without exposing you to new people.
It might be in A/B testing for some but seems like this reporter is sending the same: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/17/23829098/twitter-x-com-url-links-switch
Twitter is just pure Republican propaganda right now and nothing else. Everything else is just space filler till more Republican propaganda can get shoved into the feeds of as many people as possible.
Twitter is just pure Republican propaganda right now and nothing else. Everything else is just space filler till more Republican propaganda can get shoved into the feeds of as many people as possible.
I know it's a minority view, but I'd be delighted if the word 'twitter' could be reclaimed by it's rightful owners - small birds everywhere.
The english language lost a rather nice and useful word with the rise of that social media platform, and it would be pleasing to get it back again.
I feel similar to the word "Apple". Wonder how Steve Jobs was allowed to register it in the first place!
They took that word and then changed the very meaning of it.
Trademarks are generally registered within a certain context, so presumably he registered the word apple only within the domain of technology companies or smth similar.
But trademarks should not be ideally granted for popular words in the dictionary, there is always the danger of the word usage itself changing if that company becomes very famous (and through that the impact on human communication).
"Sun" is another example, imagine the situation today if that company had become as famous as Apple! What would you be calling the orb that rises in the East then?
Edit
Yep, referring to the once glorious but now defunct Sun Microsystems here.
I don't think people have any problem referring to the fruit even after Apple's success, and I suspect the same would be the case for "Sun" and the celestial body. People are able to distinguish between different uses of a word in different domains, which is part of why trademarks have to specify which domains the word is being trademarked in. Even the word "tweet" is used perfectly clearly to refer to the sound birds make, with any confusion for posting on Twitter only present in deliberate attempts at humor.
This confused me, because (the) Sun is about as famous as Apple, at least in the UK: it's a very popular newspaper and online media outlet. In fairness, I'm not sure if they have a trademark, but even if they had, I don't think anyone finds it difficult to differentiate between the newspaper and the real-life phenomenon.
From context they're probably referring to Sun Microsystems, which really illustrates the point that there were two large companies operating at the same time but in different contexts with their own trademarks, and no one confused either for talking about astronomy.
Yeah, I should have written "this confused me for a moment" or something like that - I did remember that there were other Suns after a thinking about it for a bit! đ But yeah, exactly: having a trademark does not prevent anyone from using that trademark at all, it just prevents them from doing business using names that could be confused with your business.
He was talking about Sun Microsystems, the (now defunct) tech company.
I know, but the fact that multiple companies can exist at the same time, with names that represent common everyday words, suggests that trademarks do not strip us of our vocabulary in quite the way the previous poster was suggesting.
There are probably a handful of exceptions to that rule though. Apple is the classic one which I already mentioned. The first thing that comes to my mind on hearing that word is a MacBook or iPhone, not some fruit. And I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one in that category!
Another popular example is Flask, the famous Python framework. Again willing to bet there will be hardly any Python programmer who will even think of that "water jug thingy" which a flask really is!
And why did I forgot Amazon! How many folks even know today that there is an amazing deep forest terrain in South America by that very name?
I honestly have no idea what youâre talking about. Words are used in sentences. You have context.
If I say, âput the diced apples in the risotto â no one whoâs serious is going to wonder âdicing iPhones? Oh my!â
What is an actual context in which you would confuse Apple the company with
apple the fruit that isnât a standup comedy routine?
Think about it this way: If word usage entirely depended on just context, why would these companies fight tooth and nail for trademarks? They may as well think, "My Coke is this huge red can of cola drink, while their Coke is a scooter or motorcycle". Or in case of Elon Musk, "My X is a social media company while their X could be a porn product or whatever". But that's not how it works, try opening a "Coke Automobiles" or "Coke Laptops" and their lawyers will be all over you! Different context doesn't matter here.
Words are intrinsically and intimately linked to the feelings they evoke in people, and folks know this, especially the folks in PR, Marketing, etc. Adding a different context could drastically alter the other original context of that word too. In an alternate world where Steve Jobs wouldn't have happened, the word "Apple" would be evoking totally different feelings in me and you than now.
No, it does. You're just wrong on that one. It's in fact one, if not the biggest, factors in determining a trademark violation (see: lapp test).
There ARE numerous trademarks over the same word or branding that exist at once because they are sufficiently different in market that no one would confuse them given context. If you had a company called, for example, "Coke Industries", which specialized in the production of the hydrocarbon, you would be fine, because no one in the market for sugary water wants to buy distilled coal.
Here's a concrete, real, and relevant examples:
Apple, the Steve Jobs one, owns the trademark for "Apple" w.r.g to computers
The company Apple Records owns the trademark for "Apple" w.r.g to music publishing
The company VKO Farms owns the trademark to "Apple" w.r.g to "clothing; fashion garments; footwear"
They all own it collectively because no one mistakes each other depending on the context.
Context is everything with trademarks.
Just because a company like Coke can overwhelm a new company with spurious lawsuits does not mean that is actually how the law works. (IANAL but) Microsoft, for example, rebranding to Coke Computer Industries would be entirely legal. It would be litigated for sure, but it would be legal. Microsoft and Coke are different industries, so a lawyer can argue that customers know through context which company it refers to. I searched Google for examples of this and got some good ones. The best was Delta Airlines, Delta Dental, and Delta Faucets. Another good one was Sysco and Cisco. So people do understand context, and the law enshrines this understanding of context into trademark law.
I think we may run in very different circles then, if your peers think of these tech giants first.
I do think you're in a minority on all of these to be honest. Never once have I confused Flask and flasks, Amazon.com and the Amazon river and/or rainforest.
Actually Amazon is a good example here. People are able to say just "the Amazon" in a conversation and context usually makes it clear if they're talking about the rainforest or the river. Saying "the Amazon rainforest" in full makes you sound a bit like you're narrating a nature documentary.
Even if you think of those things first, that doesn't rob you of the ability to use the word for other things. I think of the programming language first when I hear "Python" because I work with it, but I can still use it to talk about snakes. I'm familiar with Flask, but I'm not confused when Nile Red uses the word in a chemistry video.
Moreover, this isn't even unique to trademarks. I studied linguistics in uni and was frequently frustrated when my searches for "IPA" turned up with the beer rather than the international phonetic alphabet. Multiple things having the same name can occasionally be annoying, but most humans are more than capable of handling that.
Trademark is not there to protect words. We can and should argue about how useful or just or current property laws are. The law however protects a private enterprise from competitors trying to use the same mark, any mark is fair game for registration.
Why is it a âdangerâ for a word usage to change? Word usage changes, thatâs part of how language works. People are perfectly capable from differentiating apple when used to refer to a technology company, or a fruit, or the Beatlesâ production company. They become homophones.
Heck, the meaning of the word changed when referring to the fruit itself. âAppleâ used to be a generic term for any starchy fruit that grows on a tree, it was basically branding that made the apple we know now synonymous with the generic term.
In the days of social media, that seems inevitable. There was (is?) a time where đ was co-opted as a white supremacy symbol. Language and its colloquial meanings will shift regardless of the copyright system.
I'm admittedly a bit biased on the apple example, but I have to disagree with them changing the meaning of the word. A lot of brands use common words. There are Dove soaps and Dove chocolates. I don't confuse Subway sandwiches with subway stations. Staples stores can be a bit confusing when trying to find actual staples inside one though.
The word and fruit "apple" is so incredibly common, that I don't think Apple the tech company diluted its meaning. I'd argue that Twitter and Amazon did worse in that regard since those words are much more rarely used and only in specific contexts. Young kids have likely never heard of the Amazon rainforest, but know about Amazon the shopping website. They would definitely know about apples the fruit though.
How young are we talking? I would expect your average 10 year old to at least have heard of the Amazon river, and by extension the rainforest too. Like basic "geography is a thing" school lessons would use the Amazon and Nile as examples of rivers, Mt Everest as examples of mountains.
I was thinking as young as 2 or 3. Apples are pretty commonly used to teach kids about the letter A and the color red, after all. Apple slices and apple juice are also common snacks and drinks for young children. Kids are basically guaranteed to encounter that word outside the context of the tech giant even before they enroll in school.
On the other hand, I expect kids to be more familiar with Amazon the company than the river or rainforest by their first year of school. The company definitely comes up a lot more often just from their parents talking about shopping on there, watching shows on Amazon Prime, etc.
With the state of education in some parts of the US though... Would sadly not be surprised if some 10-year-olds thought the Amazon river and rainforest were named after the company.
Apple Computers was actually sued and had multiple disputes with regards to trademark infringement on the term Apple. Not because of anything relating to the fruit, but because The Beatles beat them to it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Fun thing that came out of this: they added a system sound to macOS called Sosumi ("so, sue me") in response to a lawsuit with Apple Corps over their sounds being too melodic.
Twitter or Xitter are acceptable. X is never going to happen.
I always read "Xitter" as "Shitter", which is quite apt.
That's always my intention when I use that spelling.
Pinyin?
Yep, the X gets read as Xi (kind of like She). It's how I've been referring to it since the change.
I always read such an X as Χ, pronounced "chi". With Twitter, this could end up "Chitter" (close enough to the original), but I too lean more towards "Shitter".
I'll stop deadnaming his website when he accepts his trans daughter. Which is to say, probably never.
If he wants it called X then he'd drop all twitter trademarks and copyrights. Taking bets on that happening?
If anyone were to make such a decision, it would be him.
Did they reverse this? For me, right now, twitter.com stays as twitter.com and x.com stays as x.com, with neither redirecting to the other. I've pretty much stopped visiting there since the X-odus, but I'm curious if they made and then suddenly reversed this change since that would seem very on-brand for Musk.
For me it's still redirecting which means they haven't reversed. It could be a case of DNS propagation still pending for your country/region. After some time, twitter.com will start redirecting to x.com.
DNS propagation is usually faster than that. For me, right now, twitter.com stays as twitter.com and x.com stays as x.com, with neither redirecting to the other.
In that case, I'm really intrigued! What region are you from?
At least here in India, "twitter.com" is getting redirected to "x.com" since last couple of days. And based on Elon Musk's recent tweet, the same must be happening in USA also.
I've always found the rebranding a fairly risky move. But I'm not too attached or nostalgic about it.
Rebranding is a risky move. Rebranding one of the most recognizable brands in history into a one letter name isn't risky at all. Risk implies a possibility of success.
It's still twitter to me. X is a letter, not a name. That said, it's not like I use it. There's a post here or there I might get linked to but otherwise it's been dead to me for quite some time.
Btw is Twitter trademark up for grabs? It'd be funny if someone started up a new Twitter that did the same as the old minus the crazy rich guy with a fascination for X's.
I find myself pushed more towards BlueSky by the day. Shit, Twitter tried to force me back on to the asinine âFor Youâ algo-hell again just this morning.
Every time I load blue sky I see the same posts. I canât seem to find any communities there that actively post.
You have to actively follow people or go looking for feeds. For example I follow a Spec List of SFF authors and a Disability feed of activists, and I've slowly followed more people as I go.
The "Following" page is literally just that, without exposing you to new people.
Here's a Science feed for example
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:jfhpnnst6flqway4eaeqzj2a/feed/for-science
It might be in A/B testing for some but seems like this reporter is sending the same: https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/17/23829098/twitter-x-com-url-links-switch
Twitter is just pure Republican propaganda right now and nothing else. Everything else is just space filler till more Republican propaganda can get shoved into the feeds of as many people as possible.
Not true, it's also art-stealing T-shirt bots and porn bots. And other bots.
I thought the art steeling bots got shut down by Disney