Xitter (pronounced shitter)
Because it’s text.
There are more kind of letters then just our latin alphabet. Cyrillic, aboriginal Canadian and even Chinese and Japanese can be typed by just text for instance （日本語の例え）
In the same vein, mathematical and other scientific symbols can be typed using just text, and 𝕏 is the symbol that stands in place for arbitrary distance in a formula.
Basically, it’s just a (mathematical) letter, it can be typed.
That’s also why their new CEO had difficulties copyrighting it; it’s just a letter, after all!
The way I look at it, if Elon Musk is gonna deadname his own child, I’m sure as shit gonna deadname the corporation he tanked
The following is a tremendously disproportionate analogy given that we’re talking about a microblogging website, but I really don’t think there’s any better term for it:
It’s really less like you’re calling Twitter by its deadname and more like you’re refusing to call it by its slave name. Twitter didn’t come up with this on its own, some guy just rolled up and said “I’m changing your name because yours isn’t cool enough.” Like, fukken Kunta Kinte.
Again, very unfortunate that that’s the only comparison that comes to mind but I’m really blanking on anything else. Jean Valjean, I guess. Maybe Darth Vader. Locutus of Borg.
I mean, it’s not like twitter was ever a beacon of glory, pre-Elon twitter was still twitter
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.
Twitter is gone. It died the day Elon fired most of its staff.
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.
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/
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.
That’s not the case at all, though it’s very often believed to be and stated as such on here and Reddit.
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.
