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?

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days 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.

    • Tujio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days 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.

  • Mandy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    5 days ago

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

    • sho@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days 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.

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    5 days 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.

    • Steve@communick.newsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I didn’t realize their own promotional emails still reference Twitter. That’s intereating.

  • Concave1142@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    It will always be Twitter to me. X is a variable in a math problem… not a company name. Oh, I’m also lazy and have never used Twitter.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    6 days ago

    I think, the main problem is that “X” doesn’t look like a name.

    When someone’s not starkly aware of the platform being called that, they might think the author typoed.
    Or is using it like the idiom “they posted it to X, Y and Z” (so just a nondescript set of platforms).
    Or genuinely means the letter X and that just doesn’t make sense in the context presented.

    “X, formerly Twitter” is just a better name than “X”, because it is recognizable.

  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    5 days 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