I can't argue with this: > Twitter was a minor, failing social media site up until Musk bought it. Maybe "slowly failing", accelerating after the purchase. B

I can't argue with this: > Twitter was a minor, failing social media site up until Musk bought it. Maybe "slowly failing", accelerating after the purchase. But I slightly disagree with this: > Twitter didn't even matter when it was just Twitter. I think twitter was disproportionally more significant, though not as hugely so as its denizens believed. If there were a graph of "number of subscribers" (X) vs "influence over Zeitgeist" (Y), Twitter would appear a little above the curve. The reason is that a lot of journalists corresponded on it so things discussed on it would appear in the press. I started using it last summer or so -- a few months before the sale. I never (and don't) like the short form. I'm more likely to see something outside my "bubble" on TW than FB, but frankly FB is more useful to me (I just want to know news about my friends and family, and their kids, basically, plus cat and dog pictures). Climate Twitter is pretty good; for some reason the same kind of thing doesn't appear on FB (Machinist FB is good and there appears to be no Machinist Twitter that I can find). If this sounds like a defense of twitter: it isn't. I'm just saying that "didn't matter" is probably too absolute. It never mattered a lot, though.