The problem with all of these platforms is not what what they're called or what they look like, or even how they function for the most part. The so-called "magic" is gone because these services are flooded with inauthentic content and behaviors. Everything is either an advertisement, propaganda, or influencer/AI slop. The signal-to-noise ratio is too low, which drives away genuine contributors and stops new people from joining and gaining critical mass.

The current state of social media is a reflection of the inability of its users to simultaneously discern what is inauthentic behavior and to free themselves of its effects. If you ask a reasonable person if they actively desire being lied to and manipulated for financial gain, they would say no; but when such deception is packaged in a tantalizing form, they find that not only can they not resist, they don't WANT to resist. Like an addict, they want and embrace the deception, to the point where they get angry at anyone who dares to pull back the curtain. The result is an abundance of weaponized and optimized inauthentic content that is being used to manipulate and monetize.

So no, bringing back the "Twitter" name and functionality is not going to do anything, because even before it was made into the hellscape that is called X, it was its own special cesspool.

Ugh. Acrobat actually craps itself on forms now. The check boxes keep disappearing during scrolling, and I have the latest reader.

"The amount of raw materials used is significantly higher meaning the ecological impact is greater."

It isn't and that's also not how it works

No they did not. This story is about how they didn't. Learn to read, coward.

This isn't about a trademark. It's about a patented specification.

This is true. And the Republicans are the party of Nazis.

As far as I can tell your post has nothing to do with what I said outside of the first sentence as the rest is just you putting words in my mouth I never even implied let alone said. Good work.

Given this I'll just address your first sentence

If that were true then democracies that saw their media ownership fall under a single ideology wouldn't fail. Only they do so people in democracies do in fact let this happen.

Right, UK speech offenses are worse than executing journalists critical of you or any one of the far worse actions done by the Saudi's.

I forgot how absurd conversations with you got. Thanks for the reminder.

ABC is heavily owned by conservatives (remember, they only brought Jimmy Kimmel back when they saw what was happening to their streaming subscriptions), PBS is under threat, what the fuck is MS-now?, and the New York Times is part of a heavily shrinking class of newspapers not owned by conservatives.

Just about every movie today is subject to meddling from the studios and management. There's probably a handful of directors who are immune, Cameron, Speilburg, and Lucas come to mind. Kubrick too in his day.

They asked ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Fox and the other right wing channels would be 100% positive. Guess which network has the vast majority of viewers.

The media is owned by a handful of billionaires. In the past journalists would ask questions and follow up. Today the administration says all manner of crazy shit and not a single peep from any media outlet.

Prime example here. DeSantis says states allow "post birth abortions" and the interviewer carries on as if this is the truth. Anyone with a few morals would have asked for clarification. https://www.yahoo.com/entertai...

So that means only looking at three media sources is an accurate view of the American news environment? How do you even come up with this stuff?

For the record, Pew is a fantastic organization. It's just what they're saying there doesn't even remotely contradict what I was saying before.

Right, so that means Saudi Arabia owning part of an American news organization is just as good as the UK. Then you go on to lecture me about measuring sticks? Your response here is ridiculous.

Narrator: The price jumped immediately afterward.