Latest Twitter Stupidity

The latest change implemented on Twitter (the site that wants to be known as X) is so stupid I almost can't believe. Check out this example:

It looks like a post by Sabrina with a photo of Joe Biden, right?

No — it's a link to a story on the Washington Post. Possibly written by Sabrina? I have not much idea what story it is, except in this case the way it was posted gave a fair idea of the content in the tweet text, probably because they have caught on to the fact that Twitter is OMITTING THE STORY'S HEADLINE and major source reference as it used to be.

The only way I can even tell it's from the Washington Post is the little WaPo url at bottom left, which looks more like a photo credit than anything else. 

This change in Twitter's format turns news stories into mystery meat. 

Here's a worse example:

What bill? 

The person who posted this article assumed the headline would be visible, and it probably was when they first posted it 9 hours ago.

Or how about this one... This is what it looks like when a user doesn't include any text with a link:

I can only laugh at that one. Why would I ever click on it? Two stock photo people with a baby looking at a computer.... and a link to Fortune? 

But X doesn't want me to click on it: that's the point. 

As Mehdi Hasan said about the change,

Another day, another bizarre decision by Musk to make this site less usable, less appealing, less accurate.

Meanwhile, a few days ago, there was news that before Musk bought Twitter, there was a "playbook" published on an extreme right-wing website, outlining what he should do to destroy the social media platform. There is also evidence that the playbook was sent to Musk.

It included instructions like, blame the Anti-Defamation League when advertisers pull their ads because there are too many nazis. Musk recently did just that. (Video from Rachel Maddow about the story; the full story by Ben Collins on nbcnews.com.)

It has not been uncommon for some people on Twitter to speculate that Musk bought Twitter to destroy it, because it allowed too much access between classes of people — that it essentially democratized speech too much. This is the first thing I've seen approaching evidence that it may be true.

All of the bone-headed changes Musk has enacted make more sense if his reasons are to drive the site to its knees and ruin its reputation.