this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
1525 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59693 readers
2890 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee 75 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The other stuff didn't bother people enough to leave, but rebranding? That's the step too far. Anyway Mastodon usage has fluctuated a good amount over the last few months so I don't think that's a good metric for people fleeing Twitter, or should I say X (what a terrible name).

Twitter's value was in its branding as the case with any ubiquitous product. There was zero reason to change it other than to further damage the entity. Fine with me Elon, go ahead and kill it, one more failed corporate driven media site. We don't need any of them.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Could be the straw that broke the camel's back.

I actually hate rebranding by itself too. I see a totally new name as just trying to escape their bad name, likely earned by their previous misdeeds.

[–] AssPennies@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

alphabet

meta

Fucking allergies, geez.

[–] stimut@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure both of those were for financial reasons (easier reporting requirements etc). As in, both Google and Facebook the companies still exist, it's just that they are now owned (along with other companies such as Waymo and Instagram etc) by Alphabet and Meta respectively.

[–] c0c0c0@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, I really don't get why people would care much about branding. It's everything leading up to that that's starting to wear people out.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Don't underestimate the value of a brand. One of the most common reasons people stick around even after negative change is because it still feels familiar and safe.

Now? This isn't Twitter anymore. It may look and feel like Twitter did yesterday, but this is the moment where people stop and look around and ask "What happened?"

Even when Facebook reformed into Meta and Google reformed into Alphabet, they still kept the old brands, to the point where people still call Alphabet "Google" more often than not. Other companies, when they want to get rid of a brand, will slowly phase it out. An ISP like Charter becomes Charter Spectrum, then over time just become Spectrum.

Dropping a brand overnight like a hot potato upsets the customer because brand identity is (tragically) huge in the modern day.

[–] wjrii@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

Now? This isn’t Twitter anymore. It may look and feel like Twitter did yesterday, but this is the moment where people stop and look around and ask “What happened?”

I think this is the main thing. It's like, why draw so much attention to this thing that people liked fine before and which you want to mutate into some sort of hypermonetized cyberpunk dystopia omninetwork? Changing the name to something vague and edgelord is like a big giant sign that says, "REEVALUATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS APP RIGHT NOW!"

[–] Venomnik0@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's also the most noticeable for the common user. You can ignore an entire logo change (one that sucks by the way)

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh God have you met people? When people talk about their tweeting, the neurochemical feedback mechanism is "oh wow you tweet?" It's filled with positive cultural context.

If that response becomes "wtf is twxing?" that entire zeitgeist just collapses and people will view the service with active repulsion. Like a toy they've grown their identity out of. Or a cringe dress they wore to their sibling's wedding.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Everybody has a breaking point, right? This could have been the breaking point for many people.

[–] megane_kun@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I'm looking at this as “various little breaking points” some very trivial, but when taken as a whole, could break someone's tolerance, causing someone to be an eX-user.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Everybody has a breaking point, right? This could have been the breaking point for many people.

Something that literally makes no difference, like a name change?

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

No difference to you. If indeed people left because of that then it made a difference by definition.

[–] Hiccup@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's a reason McDonald's isn't called Kroc's.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If McDonald’s changed their name it works make no difference at this stage.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I do, but it’s irrelevant when a company has 500 million users.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Those examples I showed you are companies the size of Twitter. It affected sales in a major way. Many of them had to walk it back.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At this point I am pretty convinced he's doing it on purpose. I don't quite understand why, except maybe as a weird flex. Or maybe the world's billionaires got together and decided to kill Twitter because they hate all the negative press? IDK, but the whole thing is just too surreal.

[–] rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It is surreal that a single capitalist can be motivated to take down a monolith like Twitter. Yeah I'm convinced it's intentional. Funny when I first heard he bought Twitter for the price he paid my initial thought was he's buying it to kill it, but then I thought nobody would waste that kind of money on a personal vendetta. I guess Elon is just that crazy.

[–] technicalogical@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The Saudis personal vendetta...

Twitter is an important tool for social uprisings and the Saudis are just one of many that would like to see it gone.