Uh huh. I’m sure that the problem ruining sites like this is people pointing out when someone else is being rude.

Anyway, a second “no u” is certainly not a surprise. Lashing out over some simple advice, name calling instead of making a point, presuming I just don’t understand you and acting like your opinion is any better by virtue of it being yours. All of these things reek of terminally online culture.

No, I get what you’re trying to say. I understand that you also have an opinion on what makes sites like this bad. I’m also just saying you’re wrong. Call me whatever you like, the fact is that people don’t respect an asshole. You can try to be less of one, or you can just continue shouting into the void.

Either way, later tater.

Oh good, the quintessential “no u”. Another reddit staple. Ironically, that sounds like an anecdote and is therefore inadmissible by your logic.

An anecdote can be evidence if the bar is low enough. I understand what you’re getting at, but if the ask is for any evidence, an anecdote can be that.

Honestly, instead of being snarky you could just clarify what you want to see. That kind of attitude is why reddit slowly became a toxic hole.

You’re not wrong, but consider that people who justified sticking around for some reason or another might leave because the brand change (to a name that is so brain dead even a little offensive) finally hits home for them that it isn’t going to be the same.

A brand name change is about the single most overt thing you can do to send the message that a product isn’t going to be the same. And when that happens, people tend to look at the recent trends for that product to get an idea of what to expect. The recent trends for Twitter happen to be right-wing echo chamber.

So yeah, the people who were going to leave have largely already left. But this brand change is going to be effective at galvanizing those who are left.

That’s the dumbest part. There’s no guarantee that this ipo bid is going to pan out. Huffman is betting big, it’s just too bad he’s so full of himself that he doesn’t realize his actions will probably be what causes this ipo to fail.

He wanted to fly under the radar and make changes that look good on paper while keeping the community relatively the same. Instead he made a splash so big that major news outlets are still talking about it months later, and now he’s actively alienating the volunteer work that holds the whole site together.

“Become profitable” is just their stated goal.

I think that their actual goal is to look profitable for the upcoming ipo so that the CEOs can cash a fat check and leave. They likely don’t care about what happens after that.

So the “become profitable while simultaneously destroying everything that made it valuable” platitude is more like “they’re cutting down the tree for the wood without thinking about the squirrels”