Don’t call it anything. Ignore it and maybe it will go away.
I mean, it’s not like twitter was ever a beacon of glory, pre-Elon twitter was still twitter
Twitter was a turd. X is a turd marinaded in diarrhea sauce.
Such poetry. It brings a tear to my eye
Ok well maybe a beacon of glory is a bit out there for Twitter, but there was a time where it was actually cool and unique.
Like back in the day where you could interact with it over plain SMS lol
I feel old.
My poor parents phone bill when I started using Twitter over SMS…
That was only the first year or two at most iirc
At least 4 years. I was using a flip phone until around 2010, and that’s how I normally use Twitter when I wasn’t at a computer.
Xitter (pronounced shitter)
Stylized as 𝕏itter
Ummm … how?!? I just copied that text and it worked. 🤯
It’s a distinct ascii character
not in ascii!!! in unicode!!!
unicode!
Nice. 👍
Sorry twitter was always trash
It really is saying something that it’s waaay worse now.
There is simple solution: just ignore it. Don’t refer to it in any way.
It’s not like it was a hostile take over. They played their part when Musk talked shit and they sued him to follow through with the purchase. They could have easily kept it, but they wanted the money instead.
Not that they are blameless - far from it - but they had a fiduciary responsibility to pursue the deal because it was good for their shareholders
“Fiduciary duty to get profit” is a libertarian myth. It has no legal basis.
It’s a myth so widely pushed and accepted over the decades that just calling it a myth won’t be accepted as an argument against it at this point.
What I think is interesting is that this sense of fiduciary duty can be used by a company to do whatever they want. Mass layoffs are part of a fiduciary duty to cut costs. Mass hirings are part of a fiduciary duty to expand operations for growth. At this point it’s less a myth and more an excuse for doing whatever.
No, I don’t think that’s true. Twitters board had to sue for specific performance because Musk backed out of a formal offer in the late stages for fabricated reasons. It’s not like it was “sue musk or go to jail” but their job as board members comes with a fiduciary obligation, and musk was paying 38% over the share price. Twitter is FAR from blameless but sueing musk isn’t a failing https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/14/twitter-vs-musk-the-complaint/
That’s not what I said. I said the “Fiduciary duty to make profit” that keeps being brought up whenever corpos act like sociopaths, is a myth.
Ok? But that’s not what the Twitter board claimed. I agree with your premise but that isn’t what happened here.
You literally used it as the reason in the comment I replied to
But they literally HAVE a fiduciary obligation. I agree with you that people use that as an excuse for heinous shit, but in this case they had a formal, legally binding offer. Musk was in breach of contract and they sued for specific performance or damages. Musk didn’t want to pay the damages. If they didn’t sue, Twitter would forfeit I think $1bn in damages and their stock would tank. Not suing would open the door for hostile investors to come in, pretend to buy, back out when they wanted to and time the stock movements. I get what you’re saying, but this is a case where if the board didn’t sue then Twitters shareholders pay for it.
You and I may agree that they never should have been in that place to begin with but that’s definitionally a fiduciary obligation
Twitter has never, even dating back to it’s inception, never ever ever turned a profit. The whole reason Elon mockingly offered to buy it was because they were looking for, and struggling to find, a buyer. They just wanted to break even and walk away.
Instead Elon was like “Hur dur I got 43 billion for ya!” And Twitter was like “SOLD! No takesies backsies!”. And Elon was like “Wait, wut?”
And then Elon carried a sink through the lobby in protest.
It was a public company, the shareholders would’ve sued them, no?
OP might be talking about the user base, not the owners.
For me, it’s simpler than that: I’m gonna deadname his company as long as he keeps deadnaming his daughter
What’s up with his daughter? Did she decide to switch name because he gave her a stupid one?
She was a boy. Now she’s a girl. Daddy didn’t take it so well.
Read to the tune of Sk8er boi by Avril Lavigne
Ah ty
I don’t understand why anyone would care this much about a social media website
They don’t. Rather, they believe that others do, so posts like this are simply signaling alliance.
People now have fond memories of twitter? Insane.
Previously, it was a shithole.
Now, it’s a Nazi shithole.Those people sold it to musk. They were tech bros whose goal from the start was to get a massive buyout and bail. They don’t deserve your respect anymore than musk does.
Twitter is gone. It died the day Elon fired most of its staff.
We should call it “X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter.” Every time. Yes it sounds ridiculous, because it is.
I mean lets not overdo it the algorithms were becoming very trash before it was bought up but it was usable. Peak twitter was like 2017
I mean, what you personally call it isn’t really going to make any difference, so if we’re trying to optimize your mental health, just reframe the naritive in your head. You’re still calling it Twitter to honor what it used to be, back when you respected it. You are refusing to acknowledge the nazi dumpster fire it has become, even if you still need to talk about it.
I personally basically never have a reason to mention the site when taking to another person, but if/when I do, I’ll call it Twitter just because I think it would annoy Elon, if he somehow knew.
