I did that because I don't know anyone who doesn't still call it Twitter.
> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
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.)
No, Zucc, you're not cyberpunk. And your overgrown jumped-up Ivy league hot-or-not definitely ain't.
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.
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!