Will Twitter still exist as "Twitter"? (2024)
328
1.9k
2.1k
2025
31%
chance

There's been concerns: Elon Musk has said Twitter is at risk of declaring bankruptcy, many engineering staff have been laid off, rumors of lurking technical debt that could bring down the site irrecoverably, landlords not being paid on-time, and likely more-to-come.

Resolves YES if Twitter is accessible by web browser as of market close, and any Tweet is able to be posted on the site. Otherwise NO. This market does not resolve NA.

Temporary outages do not count, and if it's unclear whether an outage is temporary or permanent the market can be extended by up to 1 week before it will just resolve NO.

Twitter is any website that refers to itself as Twitter located at either the domain twitter.com or any subdomain of twitter.com redirected to past a login step. The locator is a web browser that follows redirects, not purely a DNS mapping.

A Tweet is either a message referred to as a Tweet or a publicly-visible reply to anything currently(as of 2023-04-04) named a tweet.

A Website is a visual rendering produced in my web browser from HTML, CSS, and Javascript. So DNS, comments in the source code, outside comments by any owners of X, would not count as references to Twitter.

Description changes:

2023-04-04: Defined Twitter and Tweet.

2023-07-24: A web browser is used to convert "twitter.com" to a website, not a DNS lookup.

2023-08-02: Defined "website"

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

If people can only post on x.com but it is still a derivative of twitter, having posts from before change to x.com, how does this resolve?

resolve no pls

bought Ṁ200 YES

@jacksonpolack https://twitter.com/home still works and doesn't redirect, and the mentions of "Twitter" that Mira pointed out previously still exist, e.g. https://analytics.twitter.com/about says "X analytics" but also "Measure and boost your impact on Twitter."

@jack regarding the redirect - if you're not seeing it, you likely need to clear cookies. it is officially redirecting.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1791351500217754008

So... if at market close I can post a message saying "This is a Tweet" and it appears on a Website reachable by a browser by typing twitter.com into the address bar, then this market will resolve YES?

so if X start calling a tweet something else (for example, an X-post), this market would resolve to No?

predicts NO

I still don't fully understand the resolution criteria. If it would resolve today, how would it resolve?

@ErwinRossen Hmm, no response after three months doesn't instill confidence in this markets proper resolution. :-(

I can still find mentions of Twitter, but mostly in archived help documents and not the application proper. The legal documents like Privacy Policy and Terms of Service appear to have been updated to say X.

The last clear reference to Twitter and Tweets is the ad analytics. The HTML <title> is "Twitter Analytics for Mira" and the page calls things tweets:

Though it seems to be broken. If this is the only page on the site that refers to things as tweets, it will have to be working and identify specific posts as tweets to count for "message referred to as a tweet".

The "new version of account analytics beta" just takes me to the main app.

predicts NO

They've got some work to do on logged out views.

predicts NO

@jskf Elon fired too many of his devs lol

predicts YES

Here's an interesting one:

Let's assume twitter.com changes its main domain to x.com, likely going to happen before or later. And let's now assume that they set up a redirect that redirects twitter.com visitors to x.com. Couldn't it be argued that that would qualify as "any website that refers to itself as Twitter"?

@JamesColiar This wouldn't count: The domain is used to locate websites but isn't part of the website. I'll add a definition for "website" that it's the visual rendering only, though.

"Tweets" are rebranded to "Posts":

Still plenty of references to specific messages as tweets, such as the "Tweet Analytics":

@Mira its just a matter of time till all the PRs get approved to change the strings hah

@Mira Are there still any instances of this: "Twitter is any website that refers to itself as Twitter", though?

And based on this: "A Tweet is either a message referred to as a Tweet or a publicly-visible reply to anything currently(as of 2023-04-04) named a tweet." Even if they remove all references to tweets, it wouldn't matter because 'posts' as replies to past tweets would still qualify as "anything currently (as of 2023-04-04) named a tweet." No?

@JamesColiar Yes, there are still references to "Twitter", and yes publicly-visible replies to tweets are still considered tweets. So if this market resolved today it would be YES.

For replies: If I use a private browser and it forces me to log in before I can see the reply-to-tweet, it wouldn't be publicly-visible.

@Blomfilter I expect this will be received very poorly. Twitter Blue was, and this is an even worse way to monetize.

predicts NO

This market raises some technical questions.

Imagine a new internet protocol comes out which is great but which means domain names now have changed to a new format, and everybody quickly adopts it.

But the websites and content still exist, it's all fine. You can even still use today's hostname but you'll be redirected to something new like google.com.vr3

This twitter market is written in such a way that if the protocol change above happened, all current websites would be considered not to exist since it relies on the post-redirect URL rather than on the domains which it still maintains redirects from

I think that's a bit uncomfortable and not what the people will expect.

predicts NO

@StrayClimb

Right now, such a URL redirect would still resolve YES because my web browser accessing twitter.com.vr would redirect to twitter.com - a website that refers to itself as Twitter(the search bar). The locator is my web browser(which follows redirects), not nslookup.

Or here is the "Twitter Terms of Service": https://twitter.com/en/tos

They need to be more thorough in their rebranding for this to resolve NO.

predicts NO

@Mira that was just an example. It could be another change which technically modifies the URL internally, for example with punycode or for some new unicode-like system.

I mean more generally this situation: when there's an internal internet change which 99% of users might not know about or see, and all old links work --

In that situation I'd guess most users would feel the site still exists, but the way the definitions are written, this claim would consider that not existing.

bought Ṁ0 of YES

@StrayClimb

99% of users might not know about or see

The website has to call itself Twitter. The branding is a clearly user-visible aspect of the site: That's why I showed screenshots that anybody could've taken to verify this.

The difference between the bird logo and X isn't hidden, it's something everybody sees because you click on it to get to your timeline view.

The important thing is that I can start by typing "twitter.com" into my web browser's address bar and land on a website that refers to itself as "Twitter".

predicts NO

@Mira Hmm, let's say most of the site uses the name "X" and there's a few leftover references to Twitter but it's clear that the principal name the site uses for itself is X. Do you intend to count that as a YES or NO? I had expected that to be a NO.

predicts YES

@jack For consistency with https://manifold.markets/Mira/will-twitter-still-exist-by-end-of#l2pFtIf9zkXuzbj61rRg , a single reference to the current site as Twitter as part of the main app would count:

If they change the name of "tweets", the name change must be thorough to resolve NO: Even a single reference on Twitter to a new message as a "tweet" in some obscure place like the ad analytics would qualify, as long as it's unambiguous that a specific new message is being referred to as a tweet.

The homepage currently has this casual reference:

I will be looking for any earnest reference to the site as "Twitter". Some example scenarios:

Things that would count(anywhere accessible from twitter.com by web browser):

  • The main app referring to itself as Twitter

  • The home/signup page

  • "Twitter for Business", even though it is a separate product from "Twitter"

  • Legal pages like their privacy policy, terms of service, etc. referring to Twitter, as long as those pages are "actively binding" and not just archived.

Things that wouldn't count include:

  • An old blog post referring to the site as Twitter that was kept for archival purposes

  • Users writing Tweets or other messages that refer to the site as Twitter, even if those messages are hosted on X

  • The phrase "X(formerly Twitter)" (it used to be referred to as Twitter, but isn't anymore)

Things that would make me consider PROB, if they were the only such instance:

  • A single phrase like "X - the new Twitter" (One interpretation: It's not the old Twitter. Another: It's a new version of the same Twitter)

reposted
Comment hidden