I’m genuinely curious about peoples thoughts on this.

It made sense for a while. But the branding change was 16 months ago. The URI change was 3 months ago. Everybody knows now what X is. Yet for some reason, I still see in news stories today:
“… on X — formerly known as Twitter — and said …”
I really don’t think that’s needed anymore. But I’m always one to want changes as fast and painless as possible.

So what do you think would be an appropriate amount of time to keep reminding everyone that Twitter is now X?
Months?
Years?
How many?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42 hours ago

    I don’t think ever. Twitter has too big of a brand name and recognition, where X does not, and they’ll keep coasting on it (their emails to you still say “formerly known as Twitter”). News sites and places will keep calling it Twitter because X is too confusing of a name, and certain parts of their reader-base will simply have no idea who it is that they’re on about, and some social media will call it Twitter because X is a silly name, and they do not respect Elon Musk’s rebranding of Twitter in much the same way that he does not respect his daughter’s name or identity.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    86 hours ago

    X is just a vague term though. It’s also often used as a placeholder for unknown or variable things. So the “formerly Twitter” is going to stick for quite a while.

    It’s like naming a product “The Thing”. Anyone who talks about it will always have to clarify what Thing they are talking about basically forever.

  • We didn’t stop hearing Prince referred to as “the artist formerly known as Prince” until he changed his name from that symbol back to Prince.

    I expect the same for the website formerly known as Twitter.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2614 hours ago

    Everyone collectively agreed x is stupid and I hope spite will make sure this sentiment never changes

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      412 hours ago

      Almost as stupid as facebook creating a platform called threads. Zero creativity, and maxium collaboration inconvience with our language usage, plus facebook trying to stick their nose in fediverse where the whole point was to get away from their centralized metaverse BS. Facebook can fuck off.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2418 hours ago

    Forever, unless they start calling it Xcom (which would then be confused with the game) X itself could also mean Xorg (https://x.org) which is a lot older. Not to mention that it looks like someone forgot to remove a placeholder “in the site X, many people talk about…”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2721 hours ago

    Without another name change, I don’t think that phrase will ever go away, for the simple fact that X as a name is too short and nondescript. In speech, X could refer to a someone you broke up with, or it could just be the beginning of another word, serving as a prefix. In text, it could refer to the actual letter itself, or the close button on a window, or a placeholder, or something NSFW.

    There’s simply too many ways that X can be interpreted that even if people associate Twitter with X, people will still specify “formerly Twitter” just to avoid confusion

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    13
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Hopefully in a year or two they’ll eventually just call it Twitter or maybe if we’re lucky it will go out of business and then they’ll probably still just call it Twitter because the X thing would then have just been a short lived portion of its overall lifespan.

  • snooggums
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1221 day ago

    Forever, because X looks like a placeholder and media wants to be clear so they use the name that people actually associate with that trash website. It will never just be X because it is a terrible name for a business.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1524 hours ago

      I think it might be this. A lot of traditional media outlets are mad about twitter becoming such a necessity for them. The old guard is mad that they have to cater to this bullshit online platform. The new guard is mad at the fact that the best outlet for breaking online news is suddenly owned and operated by a fascist.

      All of them want to say that x is bullshit, but they don’t want to actually lose the clicks/ market share that comes with it. So they keep passive-aggressively calling it twitter.

      Drunkenly thinking about it, this is kinda like calling a trans person by their dead name. Except it’s insulting a shitty company led by a shithead, so I’m cool with it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1120 hours ago

    I think one of the reasons why we’re still seeing this dome by journalists is because Elon’s takeover is probably relevant to whatever it is they’re reporting. I’ve definitely seen articles just refer to it as “X”. But whenever it’s a story about some crazy racist shit someone said or how poorly their advertising business is doing, it’s “formerly Twitter”.

    That said, I think online people who aren’t writing for news outlets and aren’t insane will — for the most part — always call it Twitter out of spite until the site either dies or Musk sells it and it changes back.