You refer to it as ...

(Boosts appreciated.)

Ex-twitter, usually.

This is one of those occasions where I'm unhappy with my stance on names, and especially deadnaming.
I shall call it "X" until either it dies, or someone sensible takes over and brings the old name back.

@stuartb That's an interesting angle. I suppose it might be answered in a few distinct ways:

  • Corporations are not in fact people, and don't have human rights to respect and integrity. They frequently change names specifically to escape an unflattering past (to put it mildly).

  • Even in the case of people, names may be given (typically at birth or some other landmark), earned (through positive or negative associations, e.g., "The Lady with the Lamp" (Florence Nightingale) or "Vlad the Impaler" (Vlad III of Wallachia), self-bestowed ("Willy Brandt", "Mark Twain", "George Sand", "Stalin"), or assigned ("Marylin Monroe", "John Wayne", " Cary Grant").

My view is that there's a strong argument for accepting name changes in the case of transgender people, as this is the recognition of an identity that's always existed, but was unrecognised. There are times when a previously notable name might be mentioned, to allow people to draw a connection, where the person was previously well-known under a different name. E.g., Bradley -> Chelsea Manning, Ellen -> Elliot Page, Bruce -> Caitlyn Jenner. But, if that's necessary at all, once that connection has been made (which I'm bolding for those on instances not rendering Markdown), they should be referenced by their current name (emphasis).

What ... I grow tired of is the constant renaming of companies, sports halls, buildings, and the like, particularly as some sort of advertising or branding process. If these want to say "sponsored by <name>", that's fine, but it's the Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center, the Sears Tower, the Hancock Building, and ... well, let's just call it the SF Giants Park. Don't get me started on Blackwater or Phillip Morris. Or Brad's Drink (seriously).

Twitter -> X serves nothing but ego, is quite arguably bad, and, well, the site's increasingly irrelevant anyway, but when I must refer to it, it's going to be "Birdsite" or "Twitter", whichever is clearer in context. Otherwise, fuck that shit.

Drawing inferences is risky here, but I'm going to suggest that Birdsite's rebranding isn't going well.