Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There are a lot of replies beneath you attacking Musk and his vision/execution on Twitter. They mostly address the second half of your post, but most people are ignoring the first half.

A prominent media outlet is running what amounts to nothing more than a smear article against Musk/Twitter. Why? If this were an isolated occurrence, I’d write it off as strange and move on, but it isn’t. Dozens of media outlets are pushing similar content. And every time the subject comes up, the replies are filled with terse and snarky comments along the lines of “Musk bad because <reason I gleaned from smear campaign against Musk>”.

I haven’t used Twitter in years, so I can’t comment on the UX. I haven’t stayed incredibly up-to-date on all the goings-on, so I can’t provide citations or rebuttals. Maybe the site is truly that bad, that it is worth the entire Internet hammering home every single day now. It seems more likely to me that it is the other way around and the Internet decided Twitter was going to be bad once Musk purchased it.

I say the above because, how many outsiders would have noticed any changes based on their usage of Twitter? Would users have known about the mass layoffs? Has the site experience degraded as a result of that, or was Musk right that most people were doing nothing? Would users have known about changes in the content recommendation algorithm, or were they hyper-alert to changes on their feed because it was widely reported? These are half-honest questions because I really don’t know as a non-user, but also somewhat rhetorical because I suspect the answer is no.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: