Talk:Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bee again

We did discuss Babylon Bee content in the past Talk:Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Removing_Babylon_Bee_story but it doesnt seem to be the same new content added by Squatch347 (talk · contribs) and removed by InfiniteNexus (talk · contribs). We certainly didnt reach consensus to ban mention of the Babylon Bee. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry all, I didn't go back and look through the archives in talk. I do think this inclusion is different. While the interview with the CEO was in the Washington Times, this inclusion references the Washington Post, so I'm not sure a RS objection would apply in the same way.

Looking back on that link (thank you Jtbobwaysf btw) it also seems there was some objection based on it solely being from an interview with the CEO. The Washington Post article doesn't rely on that interview though. Nor does the follow-on source about Musk's ex-wife's communication. So it would appear, at first blush, that this edit would be notable and RS as far as I can see. I'm open to a language change if it read as being too causal in language, but the WAPO source does reference it as a sort of decisive point, so I'm not sure we can insert our own reading of the timeline above that.

Thoughts? Squatch347 (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

First thoughts: I support restoring some content about the Bee, cited to WaPo. I don't think we need to include the ex-wife NY Post content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is my thought as well. We shouldn't take Seth Dillon at his word (at least in this article) for why Musk acted, but it seems WaPo pieced together more of this story that would be worth including. I think the question is more whether we should wikivoice or attribute to WaPo. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against including this material, but given the previous discussion we would need new consensus on the talk page before we can do so. I also agree we can use the WaPo article, but probably not the ex-wife thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Something more like this? [1] I'm not sure if this addressed Bakkster's second concern, but I didn't want to strip out the WAPO attribution given that we only have one source. Squatch347 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable stab at it. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think my version would be

The Washington Post reported in April 2023 that the banning of accounts such as the Babylon Bee had prompted Musk to begin the acquisition. Once Musk assumed ownership, he immediately prioritized the reinstatement of accounts like the Bee.

For easy comparison, here's Squatch's:

In an April 4, 2022 article, the Washington Post revealed that issues with censorship, including the banning of accounts such as the Babylon Bee had prompted Musk to begin the acquisition. After acquisition, Musk made reinstatement of accounts like the Bee an immediate priority.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I would reduce that to

According to The Washington Post, the banning of accounts such as The Babylon Bee had prompted Musk to initiate the acquisition.

The Bee's unbanning is already noted further down in the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Me as well, added. Squatch347 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree as well, thanks. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Confusing article layout

As is, a person looking for a specific section in the article in the contents can be forgiven for clicking on the wrong thing with the exact same label. Recommend we adjust section labels to make this more casual-user-friendly.Oathed (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The sections under § Reactions and § Critical analysis correspond to each of the above section, hence the duplicate titles. I would think having different titles would make it even more confusing, unless you have an alternate proposal for the article's structure? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Copied 2001:D08:1A00:6F05:1:0:6972:230A (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Continuing fallout of the acquisition

I believe this is still an ongoing story, as Elon Musk continues to make changes to the site and intervene in its moderation. For example, "Twitter" is now "X." Just as importantly, there have been some efforts to compare user engagement on the site before the Musk takeover with today. There are naturally some caveats (including uncertainty about what would happen in a null hypothesis where Musk's takeover hasn't dramatically changed user base), and APIs that allow researchers access to site metrics are now apparently locked down behind a fairly massive fee. Yet there are still some reports tackling these questions, including: https://www.sciencefocus.com/environmentalists-are-leaving-x-formerly-twitter This mentions a study of environmentalists, with a baseline in 2020 compared to users after the takeover. Additionally, another study found a substantial number of accounts quit a few months after the takeover (linked in that article). There also are quite a few media reports attempting to catalogue some of the high-profile accounts that have vehemently disagreed with the site's direction and vowed to leave. Finally, there is also the noteworthy incidence of Elon Musk intervening to unban users who have posted apparently illegal content, such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter-csam-dom-lucre-elon-musk/, and the latest story which may receive press attention is Musk's interest in boosting accounts against the Anti-Defamation League and the memory of lynching victim Leo Frank --Edwin Herdman (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

See Twitter under Elon Musk. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)