It was always riddled with bugs, I'm not sure why people are blaming that on Musk as that is surely the least applicable of any of the criticisms that get thrown his way. Are people's memories that short that they thought it was a bug free experience up till a few months ago?
> Are people's memories that short that they thought it was a bug free experience up till a few months ago?
Hilarious how people here have tolerated all garbage and bugs from pre-Musk Twitter takeover for years and now they all complain about them now.
It is selective memory based on the current villain of the year to hate. Twitter has always been an outrage capital with a strong network effect. It is just that for the 220M+ daily active users, it is better than the sea of worse alternatives out there.
Many HNers here won’t admit it, but the reality is that network effects are real hence the difficulty in creating a viable alternative, No anecdote, short term hype or subjective responses such as ‘for me it is’ refutes that.
I honestly think people were resigned to the previous poor level of the app/website, and of course you are right, they now can use it and any regressions that have been actually introduced as a stick to beat an ideological opponent with.
Even a cursory search of HN brings up absurd bugs[1]:
> Slightly related but very interesting: the 2010 Twitter bug where simply tweeting "Accept [username]" would automatically force them to follow you.
From what Musk has told us since he took over, and others it sounds like an unholy mess behind the scenes. From [2]:
> In Tuesday's hearing, which ran for more than two hours, Zatko painted a portrait of a company plagued by widespread security issues and unable to control the data it collects. Calm and measured, he stuck closely to his expertise, unpacking technical details of Twitter's systems with real-world examples of how information held by the company could be misused.
> "It's not far-fetched to say that an employee inside the company could take over the accounts of all of the senators in this room," he warned.
From [3], a Twitter engineer on the work ethic:
> “If you’re not feeling it, you can take a few days off,” he was recorded saying. “People have taken months off.”
> “I basically went to work like four hours a week last quarter,” he added. “And it’s just how it works in our company.”
Which tells me a lot. And should we forget about this doozy from Dorsey's days in charge?[4]
> Oh, and while he was in charge, there was no backup of Twitter’s database.
I could go on for a long time but it's clear that people are being selective with their memories.
Is your contention that now you've been shown a more serious bug than you'd experienced previously that it's an indication that there were not similar or worse bugs in existence before the takeover?
Even if I myself hadn't experienced more serious bugs than those prior to the takeover, it'd still seem a stretch.
Private tweets aren't private, they're limited audience. If you're saying something defamatory behind "private" tweets then, I hate to break it to you, it's still defamation. You might get some mitigation from limiting the audience but that's it.
I would hazard that they weren’t in a position to know or be sure, given the whistleblower’s revelations, but also that they wouldn’t be publicising random bugs from their bug tracker without reason.
