PPlamenu
HomeTrendingLive feedsPeopleGroupsRulesStaff
Sign in
PPlamenu
HomeTrendingLive feedsPeopleGroupsRulesStaff
Sign in

posted in Technology

some_guy@some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
⁨12⁩d

New Twitter launches, says Musk's X gave up the name

Get your shortnames while the getting’s good.

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/new-twitter-launches-says-musks-x-gave-up-the-name/
6810841
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
emoji3
mrmisses@mrmisses@lemmy.world
edited⁨12⁩d

Replying to @⁨some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org⁩

I hope this takes off and people start using “tweet” and “twitter” again and it makes “x” completely irrelevant like his Hitler salute should have

Edit: it cost $20 to join?! I’m out

12000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
antonim@antonim@lemmy.world
edited⁨12⁩d

Replying to @⁨mrmisses@lemmy.world⁩

Edit: it cost $20 to join?! I’m out

Well, they need something to pay the lawyers with once Musk takes notice.

Edit: I’ve just discovered this interesting concept called “reading the article” and found out that they’ve already been sued, though it’s still not entirely settled.

5000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
treadful@treadful@lemmy.zip
⁨12⁩d

Replying to an earlier post

I’ve just discovered this interesting concept called “reading the article”

Spread the word my brother! You’ve got to let everyone know about this new fad!

⁨Aug⁩ ⁨26⁩, ⁨2026⁩, ⁨23:57⁩en
2000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
artyom@artyom@piefed.social
⁨12⁩d

Replying to an earlier post

I read it but honestly, probably 80% of the time I do not. Because articles are very often full of pop ups and ads and tracking and paywalls, and are unnecessarily verbose (most can be summarized in 1-2 sentences), and are just republishing someone else’s work while adding nothing, and simultaneously devoid of useful information or any actual sources.

1000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
KyuubiNoKitsune@KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone
⁨12⁩d

Replying to an earlier post

Some of that can be solved with Firefox and unblock.

1000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
BooBees@BooBees@fedinsfw.app
⁨12⁩d

Replying to an earlier post

100% can be solved by knowingly making a glaringly obviously false claim about the topic and someone will correct you in a dickish tone while citing the article

2000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
Salvo@Salvo@aussie.zone
⁨12⁩d

Replying to @⁨BooBees@fedinsfw.app⁩

Works for me 😏

0000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
huey_m@huey_m@piefed.social
⁨12⁩d

Replying to an earlier post

Your grandad’s AI summary, if you will.

1000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
brsrklf@brsrklf@jlai.lu
⁨12⁩d

Replying to @⁨huey_m@piefed.social⁩

I’ve seen AI summaries that looked like the AI had not read the article.

1000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
huey_m@huey_m@piefed.social
⁨11⁩d

Replying to an earlier post

In fairness, that could be said of some of the know-it-all summaries as well. 😅

0000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs
protist@protist@retrofed.com
⁨12⁩d

Replying to an earlier post

I’ve just discovered this interesting concept called “reading the article”

What dark magic is this

0000
Open original page
BoostsQuotesFavs