3 ms·

> on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter Do they not like the new name? I don't either, though. I've seen a lot of "on X (formerly Twitter)" ar

> on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter Do they not like the new name? I don't either, though. I've seen a lot of "on X (formerly Twitter)" around and that's why I don't like the new name. If it were a good and memorable name we wouldn't need to qualify it like that.

bdcravens 3y ago
More like there's many who don't even know about the name change.
JohnFen 3y ago
"X" is overloaded, so you can't really use it without an additional specifier such as "formerly Twitter" and be certain people know which X you're talking about. It's one of the reasons why X is a really stupid name. Personally, I just skip the whole issue and call it Twitter. Everyone knows what that is.
- klyrs 3y ago
  It's still hosted at twitter.com; x.com even redirects to twitter.com -- so even twitter is gently reminding us that the rebrand is halfassed at best. But I agree, the name itself is a huge part of the problem. If they called it EdgeLordsManor (or whatever) we'd all go along, with a brief "formerly known as" period to notify non-users of the change.
37638894breeze 3y ago
I like the "X, [the platform] formerly known as X" its evolution. Latest in the wild sighting was "X, formerly Twitter". What I like about it is that it lifts the skirt on the superficial divides. Good soldiers of the information regime all toe the line here and dutifully help Elon with his illadvised brand name destruction. I mean, I go to geopolitical websites run by people who like Putin, for example, and even there, the resistance blogger/propagandists dutifully remind us the "X, formerly Twitter" just in case we forget or haven't heard the news. We know things are bad if even North Korean output is using the "formerly Twitter" insert. Anyone checked?
throwawaycities 3y ago
Not many global brands with multibillion dollar IP willfully rebrand. Funny enough though, not only did Twitter do it with X recently, but Facebook rebranded recently to Meta and it’s still common Meta is referred to as “Meta formerly Facebook”, even in the wiki article that is included in opening sentence. I don’t think it’s so much a reflection on the new brands it mor a reflection on the value of the old brands which still carry a lot of value for SEO purposes which is likely was articles/blogs probably tend to include the former brands.
- hristov 3y ago
  Facebook's parent company rebranded to meta. The site Facebook is still Facebook. The Meta rebrand was mostly for the benefit of investors. Google did a similar thing. It is easier to rebrand for the benefit of investors. There are only hundreds of thousands of investors who matter to a company the size of facebook, or Google, and all the investors who matter spend a lot of time reading financial news, so the rebrand will not cost you too much in terms of name recognition. But rebranding a large commercial website is a different story. There you have hundreds of millions of end users that do not have time to think too much about you neither do they care much. The fact that twitter got itself lodged in the brains of hundreds of millions of humans is a great achievement. Throwing it away is kind of dumb.

bdcravens 3y ago

More like there's many who don't even know about the name change.

JohnFen 3y ago

"X" is overloaded, so you can't really use it without an additional specifier such as "formerly Twitter" and be certain people know which X you're talking about. It's one of the reasons why X is a really stupid name. Personally, I just skip the whole issue and call it Twitter. Everyone knows what that is.

klyrs 3y ago
It's still hosted at twitter.com; x.com even redirects to twitter.com -- so even twitter is gently reminding us that the rebrand is halfassed at best. But I agree, the name itself is a huge part of the problem. If they called it EdgeLordsManor (or whatever) we'd all go along, with a brief "formerly known as" period to notify non-users of the change.

37638894breeze 3y ago

I like the "X, [the platform] formerly known as X" its evolution. Latest in the wild sighting was "X, formerly Twitter". What I like about it is that it lifts the skirt on the superficial divides. Good soldiers of the information regime all toe the line here and dutifully help Elon with his illadvised brand name destruction. I mean, I go to geopolitical websites run by people who like Putin, for example, and even there, the resistance blogger/propagandists dutifully remind us the "X, formerly Twitter" just in case we forget or haven't heard the news. We know things are bad if even North Korean output is using the "formerly Twitter" insert. Anyone checked?

throwawaycities 3y ago

Not many global brands with multibillion dollar IP willfully rebrand. Funny enough though, not only did Twitter do it with X recently, but Facebook rebranded recently to Meta and it’s still common Meta is referred to as “Meta formerly Facebook”, even in the wiki article that is included in opening sentence. I don’t think it’s so much a reflection on the new brands it mor a reflection on the value of the old brands which still carry a lot of value for SEO purposes which is likely was articles/blogs probably tend to include the former brands.

hristov 3y ago
Facebook's parent company rebranded to meta. The site Facebook is still Facebook. The Meta rebrand was mostly for the benefit of investors. Google did a similar thing. It is easier to rebrand for the benefit of investors. There are only hundreds of thousands of investors who matter to a company the size of facebook, or Google, and all the investors who matter spend a lot of time reading financial news, so the rebrand will not cost you too much in terms of name recognition. But rebranding a large commercial website is a different story. There you have hundreds of millions of end users that do not have time to think too much about you neither do they care much. The fact that twitter got itself lodged in the brains of hundreds of millions of humans is a great achievement. Throwing it away is kind of dumb.