Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’

#901

Post by Method-X »

Applejinx wrote: post #896
heyjamesknight wrote: post #441

I've been mostly ambivalent about the Musk-era at Twitter—mostly because I just don't care enough to have an opinion. This, though. This one makes me angry and disappointed. Twitter has had such a solid brand for so long. It's accomplished things most marketers only dream of: getting a verb like "Tweet" into the standard lexicon is like the pinnacle of branding. Even with all of the issues, "Twitter" and its "Tweets"…

The reason I keep saying 'ketamine is a hell of a drug' is, foolish doesn't adequately describe what's happening. The wealthiest huckster in the whole entire world has done so many horse tranquilizers as psychedelics that something broke and he is flipping out and wielding his power in unaccountable ways, like any billionaire, but in obvious madness. He broke. But nobody can do a thing to help, because billionaires a…

Elon is doing ketamine? I think I'm missing context.

Re: Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’

#902

Post by Fomite »

finikytou wrote: post #646
musha68k wrote: post #602

I don’t remember who stated this but basically there is this thought that Musk was in fact mad about how on Twitter the “common man” could indeed vocally and effectively share their disagreement with his decisions. It also might have been an impulsive decision to become relevant in “new tech” at the same time (why would he care so much about this, boredom?). Ultimately he probably just wanted to get out of that impul…

that is pretty unfair. the common man never had that amount of freedom on twitter. the lobbies, the blue elite and the powerful however lost a similar if not more amount of control over the masses thanks to Musk.

"The Blue Elite" is the most unhinged concept to emerge from this whole thing.

Re: Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’

#903

Post by danjoredd »

mcv wrote: post #282
matsemann wrote: post #4

Twitter has managed to get so many words to be common. Like it's a "tweet", not "a post on facebook". It's a "retweet" or "quote tweet", not "something I shared on facebook". Why throw all this deep brand recognition away? It's like people say "google it", and google suddenly changing the name of their search.

I think I'm going to call the site X/Twitter now. Pronounced: ex-twitter.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Twitter, is in fact, X/Twitter, or as I've recently taken to calling it, X plus Twitter. Twitter is not a social media unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning X system made useful by the X corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full as defined by X.

Re: Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’

#904

Post by joebiden2 »

heyjamesknight wrote: post #441

I've been mostly ambivalent about the Musk-era at Twitter—mostly because I just don't care enough to have an opinion. This, though. This one makes me angry and disappointed. Twitter has had such a solid brand for so long. It's accomplished things most marketers only dream of: getting a verb like "Tweet" into the standard lexicon is like the pinnacle of branding. Even with all of the issues, "Twitter" and its "Tweets"…

[flagged]

Re: Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’

#905

Post by api »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #698
throw-ru-938 wrote: post #617

Elon's acquisition of Twitter is a gift that just keeps on giving. At this point, considering the social polarization it brought, destroying Twitter for good would be an immense service to humanity, and Musk is doing exactly that, even if unwillingly.

Did twitter bring the polarization or simply act as a venue for it? Either way, despite how polarized it may have been, it was valuable for many groups and a large number of genuinely grassroots social & artistic movements originated there or effectively used it. Destroying those doesn't seem like a clear cut positive for humanity, as you're framing it.

Imagine two people walk past you on the street. One says "hi" and smiles. The other smears themselves with peanut butter and starts clucking like a chicken and saluting Hitler. Which one maximizes engagement?

Which one would the social media algorithms promote?

I credit algorithmic timelines as one of the primary factors in today's hyper-polarization. Twitter was one of the more influential ones, especially when coupled with a short character limit that prohibits deep discourse and as others have mentioned a lack of comment threads or other tools to organize ideas. The whole thing promote vapid sound bite meme-think, which best fits fanaticism and trolling.

Facebook and YouTube are the other big mass-lobotomizing engines. The mechanism is largely the same-- promoting things that maximize engagement which means the most inflammatory or ridiculous ideas.

Re: Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’

#906

Post by aaronsimpson »

TheCondor wrote: post #708
heyjamesknight wrote: post #441

I've been mostly ambivalent about the Musk-era at Twitter—mostly because I just don't care enough to have an opinion. This, though. This one makes me angry and disappointed. Twitter has had such a solid brand for so long. It's accomplished things most marketers only dream of: getting a verb like "Tweet" into the standard lexicon is like the pinnacle of branding. Even with all of the issues, "Twitter" and its "Tweets"…

Does it? Social media doesn't age well. Look at myspace. This will be controversial, but Google didn't get where it wanted/needed to be with Google+ and they ripped the cord out of the wall; it seemed like it was just google being google but it may have been genius. I was also critical of FB/Meta buying Insta, I figured it was all going to somehow be Facebookgram but they kept it separate. FB is now for old people an…

I've been on a Twitter break the past two weeks and it's been pretty glorious all things considered. The only thing I really do miss - and will miss if the platform dies - is that ability to be connected to the thoughts of people I want.

The question of what happens to the blogosphere types if/when Twitter explodes matters a lot to me. Idk if Substack is the right answer.

Re: Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’

#907

Post by timmytokyo »

meepmorp wrote: post #553
mrkramer wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Throwing all of that away so Elon can use a domain he's sat on since '99 seems exceedingly foolish. Elon is driven by emotions not rationality but I wouldn't be surprised if he goes back to the Twitter logo and brand after he realizes that nobody cares about his new logo and brand. Like Gil Amelio said[0] about Apple, I would now say about Twitter: Twitter is like a ship with a hole in the bottom, leaking water and…

> Like Gil Amelio said[0] about Apple, I would now say about Twitter: Twitter is like a ship with a hole in the bottom, leaking water and Elon's job is to get the ship pointed in the right direction. The solution to getting Apple pointed in the right direction was (eventually) to buy NeXT and bring Jobs back. So, the solution here would seem to be - buy Bluesky and bring back Dorsey?

I'm not sure which is worse: a mercurial drug-addled owner, or a neglectful absentee CEO. Probably the absentee CEO. But neither is great.

Re: Twitter has officially changed its logo to ‘X’

#909

Post by tmpz22 »

joebiden2 wrote: post #904
heyjamesknight wrote: post #441

I've been mostly ambivalent about the Musk-era at Twitter—mostly because I just don't care enough to have an opinion. This, though. This one makes me angry and disappointed. Twitter has had such a solid brand for so long. It's accomplished things most marketers only dream of: getting a verb like "Tweet" into the standard lexicon is like the pinnacle of branding. Even with all of the issues, "Twitter" and its "Tweets"…

[flagged]

If he was altruistically trying to save humanity from Twitter why didn't he just turn twitter off when he bought it?

I guess it could be because he didn't single handedly buy Twitter. IIRC he contributed $15B of the $44B acquisition. I guess he can't turn it off without his co-investors holding him accountable?

Post reply on HN