Hacker News Reader

Comment by robxorb | Hacker News Reader

Why is the title of the HN post changed to read "Twitter", when the linked article title states correctly "X", and is otherwise identical?

View on HN

It ultimately doesn't matter what a company wants to call themselves if the vast public just uses the old name

I mean, it does matter, and also HackerNews is the only bubble I interact with regularly that still holds on to the Twitter name like gollum and the one ring.

My understanding is that HN has rules against editorialization of headlines. This absolutely qualifies. The company is called X, the article calls it X. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use that name when you speak about the company, but editorializing the headline to name the company whatever the submitter wants is inappropriate.

"X" feels (to me) much more ambiguous than "Twitter".

If you say "Twitter", people know what you're talking about. If you say "X", are you talking about "X" marks the spot? Rated "X"? "X" the former project name for Paypal? "X" as in an unknown quantity? "X" is used in a lot of different contexts. I think if you want to use the name "X", then you should probably say "The company, X,".

Twitter is a verb, but when you use it as a noun, the listener instantly knows that you are talking about the company "Twitter". Plus, it's the name we are all familiar with.

I have never heard anyone in real life call it X.

I do agree that the headline shouldn’t be editorialized, though. “X (formerly Twitter)” at most.

I think there's a lot of variance between the different groups people here are part of and the different conventions they follow. That's broadly the case with HN actually.

I did that because I don't know anyone who doesn't still call it Twitter.

Well, when I got up this morning I didn't think I'd be doing this today:

> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

Both names are linkbait. I think 'Twitter' is less misleading than 'X', so it wins the guideline on points.

Not saying it's a strong case, just that it tilts that way. Others would call it differently and that's always the case with a close call.

Just because you buy something doesn't mean you get to change popular usage by decree. There's a whiff of corporatism about that which sticks in my craw.

(I am not, god help us, making any implicit point about the muskwars.)

Ideally you'd do the same for Facebook. That other thing they call themselves is immensely insulting to a good word, and stolen valor to boot.

No, Zucc, you're not cyberpunk. And your overgrown jumped-up Ivy league hot-or-not definitely ain't.

Well now that you mention it, the Twitter -> X, Facebook -> Meta, and Google -> Alphabet transitions are all kind of similar aren't they. I never noticed that before!

There's a difference

Meta owns Facebook so you can still talk about Facebook separate from Meta. Meta also owns Oculus

Alphabet owns Google so you can still talk about Google separate from Alphabet. Alphabet also owns Waymo.

X "is" Twitter. They aren't two separate things (a parent company and one of their subsidiaries) like the other two examples.

Those are distinctions without a difference in popular usage. Alphabet may own Waymo but in most people's minds (or at least in my mind) it's all one thing and the name of that one thing is Google. Similarly for FB and Twitter. You can change a name on paper but that doesn't determine how people talk.

There's another interesting aspect: the original names Google/Facebook/Twitter are so much more expressive than Alphabet/Meta/X. The latter feel like constructs of some imperious baron on his march up the abstraction ladder, leaving the rest of us cold.

But I'm ranting now, sorry!

It's pretty common in my circles to call it X now. Things change, most people adapt.

X (formerly Twitter) is how I’ve seen it cited elsewhere.

That's the safest, but it runs up against HN's 80 char limit on titles and also feels clumsy and formalistic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com