4 ms·
If by worked you mean "the site isn't dead", yes. If you mean more "profitable", I don't think that's true, is it?
by SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
If by worked you mean "the site isn't dead", yes. If you mean more "profitable", I don't think that's true, is it?
- tazu 2y agoSetting aside the political reasons for less advertising revenue, it's still running and there are 200M DAU. Many ex-employees swore the servers would catch fire by now.
- richbell 2y ago> Many ex-employees swore the servers would catch fire by now. They've 'caught on fire' many times, such as the time login/2fa broke, or the weeks/months where you were rate-limited to only a few hundred interactions per day.
- seba_dos1 2y agoJudging by how unreliable it has been ever since, there's likely constant firefighting going on.
- Andrew_nenakhov 2y agoCan't confirm. It works for me just as well as it did in 2022.
- ksec 2y agoNot my experience at all. It is faster and has slightly more feature since.
- mcphage 2y agoIt really doesn’t work well. But it has the advantage in that, if some messages just don’t appear… well, you don’t really notice.
- brigadier132 2y agoThat has nothing to do with letting go staff and everything to do with the owner.
- rbanffy 2y agoLetting go staff has everything with the owner though.
- pasttense01 2y agoWrong. A substantial number of advertisers dropped X.com because it isn't brand safe (for example their ads are located next to racist or Nazi or pornographic content). A substantial number of the staff let go were involved in keeping the site brand safe.
- nadist 2y agoGoogle also should not show x.com on search engine as its another social media platform, it has nothing to do for ranking