Comment by azangru

2 days ago

> While I'd generally agree that most companies can change their name, encroaching on a basic letter should be off limits

To me it's the other way around. If the platform had been named X from the start, then a language would have developed around it, including what its messages are called, or what verb is used to refer to posting a message. We, the public, wouldn't have known any better. With Twitter, we do know better — better name, better nouns, better verbs (even a better logo; but that's by the by). Bosses can rename their products as much as they like; it's just surprising to me that we as a public so obligingly give up this tiny bit of our language.

> like naming your company "The" or "God".

Consider truth social :-) I am amazed people agree to call the messages there 'truths', and reposts, 'retruths'. So embarrassing.

4 comments

azangru

Reply
account42  2 days ago

"Tweets" was already an embarrassing term. We used to be fine with just "posts" or "comments" instead of trying to put the company branding in every term.

mihaic  2 days ago

> If the platform had been named X from the start, then a language would have developed around it, including what its messages are called, or what verb is used to refer to posting a message.

I'm not really sure. Some things don't compound, that's why I think a preposition for instance would make a bad name. But even if you may be right, I still want to put up a fight against corporate entities trying to take over basic concepts (X, the unknown, the letter that marks the spot, etc.). I don't want to be forced to use your name if your name is an absurdity, the same way I can't make a brand called "Trump is an idiot" (even if it's true).