• cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

  • EndOfLine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • Commiunism@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hey, don’t rewrite history - twitter was always notoriously bad, under Elon it surely got even worse though.

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      They don’t. Rather, they believe that others do, so posts like this are simply signaling alliance.

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not really. It was fun to talk to people that you barely knew. It was kinda like a hybrid of a chatroom and a forum.

      But it grew to become shit.

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Those people sold it to musk. They were tech bros whose goal from the start was to get a massive buyout and bail. They don’t deserve your respect anymore than musk does.

  • als@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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

    • goldteeth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.