Musk decides to go dark on Twitter, or X
Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, or X, has announced that the platform will soon only be viewable in dark mode.
This change is being made because Musk believes that dark mode is "better in every way" and that it aligns with the new black color scheme of the app.
Musk replied to Twitter user @cb_doge this to announce the decision:
This platform will soon only have “dark mode”. It is better in every way.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 27, 2023
Why dark mode?
Dark mode is a popular feature on many apps and websites, as it can help to reduce eye strain and make the text easier to read in low-light conditions.
However, some people may find it difficult to read white text on a black background, especially if they have dyslexia or astigmatism.
For a long time now, many mobile apps, in particular, have left the choice of theme to the users, because it's all about personal preference! Only time will tell whether Elon Musk is serious or joking about this.
Wait, wasn't Twitter blue?
If you don't actively use social media, you may have missed this news, but Elon Musk recently announced that he would rebrand Twitter as X, the Everything App, and the topic dropped like a bomb on social media.
Twitter's logo had already been replaced with the letter "X", while we were debating whether Elon could do it because Microsoft owns the rights to the X trademark. But the sharp businessman must be serious about this transformation because he even took over the X handle on Twitter.
And why does he do that? Twitter has long been one of the most preferred channels of social media platforms. Since Elon Musk bought Twitter in 2022, there have been a lot of changes, most notably the recent move to transform Twitter from just a social media platform into a marketing, payment, and video streaming platform.
Whether we like it or not, it looks like this change will happen sooner or later and we will soon be using Twitter, or rather X, perhaps only in dark mode. But don't worry, just as there's a Dark Mode plugin for Chrome, surely this change will lead to a "White Mode" plugin coming to the store very soon.
Update: Elon Musk tweeted that many users did not like this decision and that the platform would be in dark mode "by default" rather than "only" in dark mode. See his tweet below.
AdvertisementA lot of people have asked to keep light mode, so we will, but the default will be dark and dim will be deleted
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 28, 2023
How long before you can only post using the “x” key?
So basically the same as ghacks default homepage with no option
A surely hope X/Twitter does not go down this “dark only” mode path. Bad move.
“Update: Elon Musk tweeted that many users did not like this decision and that the platform would be in dark mode “by default” rather than “only” in dark mode. See his tweet below.
A lot of people have asked to keep light mode, so we will, but the default will be dark and dim will be deleted”
Very good.
@Karl,
Based on your previous views on Twitter and Elon Musk
Your shortsighted reviews are easy prey for dictators.
They will smile at you, act like they are close to you, and bring to trick. This has been regular procedures of history.
“False with one can be false with two: one instance could be applicable to anything”
In short, this regularity is a theorem, And it also explicitly stated the “true nature” of Elon Musk.
Never will his abusive nature (selfishness) change, He will be become more cunning.
You should “give it up” once and for all.
Tom, I doubt he’s being serious about having a “dark mode” only; it can create accessibility or usability issues, etc. It’s mostly just theatre and “shock advertising” aimed at Social media lemmings, that’ll mindlessly “lap it up”, and give him more free publicity via articles such as this one.
Indeed, with my vision situation I can’t read sites and images that are in dark mode. Such a change would be effectively locking out a portion of the population. Hmm, let’s see, different treatment based on a physical attribute. Isn’t there a word for that?
@Divine Shadow, maybe. Remains that it may not always be obvious to know at what degree one’s comments must be understood. There’s also this dishonest behavior to state things with a tone of first degree (seriously) to later jump out of the buzz by stating “’twas a joke only”. it may be the case as it may not be, but when you have responsibilities you don’t get into that sort of theater as I see it. Anyway, theater or not (when is he acting, does he know himself?), closing a question before even opening it via a “because it’s better” is either rude if said seriously or idiotic if meant to cause the buzz. Some say that nothing is idiotic when it makes people talk of you. Whatever I’d get paid for it I can tell you that dancing the jerk naked on Times Square or in Paris’ Place de la Concorde would make me feel stupid, unless, indeed, if my references were not the fundamentals of a civilized behavior but whatever I can gain out of primitive, uncivilized behavior. And that’s how it goes nowadays : forget all your references, your only god will be fame, and money. Not my values need to say.
> But the sharp businessman must be serious about this transformation because he even took over the X handle on Twitter.
> But don’t worry, just as there’s a Dark Mode plugin for Chrome, surely this change will lead to a “White Mode” plugin coming to the store very soon.
It is absurdly insane that “@X”, which has been in use since 2007, was unilaterally canceled without contacting the account owner, taken over by Twitter’s official account, and “not even financially compensated”.
I don’t care what happens to Twitter (now X) because I keep social media at a distance and hate Elon Musk.
However, if the users continue to accept “Elon Musk’s words and deeds”, he will be definitely puffed up, and become a shameless dictator (although he has already shown his true dictatorship).
2 episodes related to that insane:
Episode 1: Tesla tampered with range-estimation software to inflate the range of its vehicles, Reuters reports
Tesla’s secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/
A person interviewed by Reuters testified that CEO Elon Musk was the one who directed the fraud.
Episode 2: After the Department of Justice, the SEC, and the California DMV, the Golden State’s Attorney General Is Also Now Investigating Tesla’s FSD
https://wccftech.com/after-the-department-of-justice-the-sec-and-the-california-dmv-the-golden-state-attorney-general-is-also-now-investigating-tesla-fsd/
Quoting from the article:
After sacrificing its industry-leading margins to maintain market share, Tesla is banking on unlocking the true potential of its Autopilot’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) capability to drive future profitability and growth. That rosy scenario, however, now appears increasingly jittery as federal and state authorities keep opening new investigations into the Autopilot’s safety and the attendant marketing strategies employed by Tesla.
Platformers that monopolize the market are “microcosms of society”.
It will inevitably spread to the global society, eliminate diversity, and establish a society of “rulers and in a subordinate position”.
Don’t let this rudeness go unnoticed. For society and the future.
Why, why, why ONLY, this “ONLY” which is the very vector of sectarianism, dictatorship? Why ONLY dark-mode?
Hey, I prefer dark mode screens, Musk as well as it seems, I should rejoice, no? I certainly should not rejoice of whatever is imposed : give, leave the freedom for each of us to choose rather than impose because in our view “It is better in every way.” to quote Musk’s tweet about dark mode screens. “It is better” : who said so?
Unbelievable to still discover in year 2023 such arrogant attitudes. Unfortunately with the winds of extremism spreading all over the planet, increasingly, not only is our own freedom (intellectual included) in danger, it is the very existence of democracy which is at risk, I think it is even the very sanity of mankind which is concerned : you may have the IQ of a genius, starting the moment you refuse other preferences, orientations than your own you have a true mental sanity problem. Live and let live, for crying it out loud.
Help me out here, Tom.
Previously, Twitter was only light mode – now it will be only dark mode, right?
So user freedom isn’t really being taken away, is it? The user has the same amount of choice – none. Sure, dark/light mode slider would be the ideal circumstance here, but things aren’t being taken away in this instance, are they?
It’s very simple to me, the options to customise twitter will probably be locked behind a subscription fee at some point, and dark/light mode will be there.Typical, expected behavior, the average user (who may not even have an account) won’t really be inconvenienced, but if someone is really mad they can part with their money to fix it, (I know that’s not the case yet, but I believe that’s what’s gonna happen).
A website changing from light to dark mode has nothing to do with dictatorship, loss of democracy, or extremism. Ironically, there is a greater freedom of speech on twitter now, than there was before Elon bought it. Say what you will about Elon or his poor decisions, but he is closer to the political center than the far-left which ran twitter before.
I am not a major twitter user, I have an account I occasionally use. But I am greatly drawn to people’s (inflated?) outrage and anger at the twitter/elon thing, only because it seems completely out of proportion to me. Wasn’t it discovered that Twitter wasn’t profitable, one of Elon’s goals as it’s new owner is probably to turn that around, hence why the restrictions/subscriptions/mass-layoffs. Just seeing it from a money/business standpoint.
Bruh: “Say what you will about Elon or his poor decisions, but he is closer to the political center than the far-left which ran twitter before.”
What is the political center to you, the far right stuff he pushes in the United States, or the pro-communism stuff he pushes in China?
In my opinion Elon Musk only believes in power and money, he cares little for your politics. He tried going right wing because the thought he could make a few dollars and retweets off it. Looks like he is going back to the left by hiring a CEO whose last job was promoting vaccines. Elon is also trying to cancel AM radio, where conservatives talk radio lives, which is not supporting free speech.
“Elon is also trying to cancel AM radio, where conservatives talk radio lives, which is not supporting free speech.”
Post your source please.
I searched the Net for a while but gave up as nothing worthy showed up.
@Karl
Tesla’s dropping of AM radio in its cars prompts broadcasters and lawmakers to fight back against the ‘betrayal’
https://fortune.com/2023/06/06/am-radio-tesla-electric-cars/
“Overtones of the US partisan divide have crept into the discussion, with some zeroing in on talk radio, where conservative hosts such as Sean Hannity thrive on AM channels.”
@bruh, I wasn’t stating that Twitter shifted from a user’s choice of screen color mode to an imposed one : indeed the choice wasn’t respected before as well — in that it didn’t exist as an option — and indeed many Websites don’t offer natively that option, though some do and otherwise dedicated extensions exist.
What I meant to emphasize is this : not giving the freedom of an option is one thing, but deliberately stating that the screen will be in dark mode because “It is better in every way.” is another. Same as if one stated “because lite mode is better” : you just cannot behave that way in life. If options lack you shut up, you don’t start legitimating a choice on the ground that “it’s better, period”. This is rude, uncivilized.
Now of course, as you do, things can be considered pragmatically and indeed the difference between a default lite and a default dark screen mode is secondary when the main point is the existence or not of the user’s choice via a dedicated option. You’ve got a point there. Yet, what irritates me is the “because i said so” attitude which may be relevant or not of a person’s approach of others but which is certainly a totally uncivilized behavior. In my view.
> “A website changing from light to dark mode has nothing to do with dictatorship, loss of democracy, or extremism”
Not as such but when argued in terms such as those of Musk to explain his decision, I believe it is relevant of a state of mind which participates to a spreading lack of concern for others which is the very component of extremist positions.
You know, there’s always a start to eras of dictatorship : some were fortunate enough to notice that beginning in the very early 1930s and fled from a country bound to the worst at the time. We are, in my view, definitely at the start of a new era which is progressively signing the temptation to defeat what democracy has built : pluralism, freedom. And the twist may be obvious as it may be insidious : when the discourse is “Do it as you want, as you like it” (freedom) together with a powerful manipulation of minds (disinformation, intoxication) then you may wonder if the motivation and consequences aren’t the same in both attitudes.
from there on a statement such as that of Musk’s is in the straight line of an era of radical decisions motivated by nothing else than “because i said so”. Look around you : from the very attitudes on social sites to politics throughout the planet, we’re on a road to intolerance. And businesses whatever they be tend to behave the same : accept or move out. In my view this is frightening also because it is the germ of peoples’ revolutions. Not only money when consideration is the minimum required by us all, consideration and respect. And we’re loosing that progressively, ane the worst is that we tend to behave the same as those we point at. Frightening. What the heck is becoming of this world?
> nothing to do with dictatorship, loss of democracy, or extremism.
Lessons from history (reason):
Fascism approaches the masses with a smile, buys their favor, and puppets them (by the time it realizes it, it is too late).
What unprincipled “freedom” brings is lawlessness, and it will inevitably be “ruled by strong power (money and violence)”, freedom and fairness will be lost, and destined to be relentless oppressed under the rule of power.
Liberty must be “fair under the law (regardless of origin, rich or poor)”.
In short, the value of one person, one vote.
An act that violates the “law” is truly an “illegal act”, and it is an immutable theorem that it is evil (sin).
When changing laws and regulations, “the consent of voters and formal procedures are necessary” in order to ensure fairness. If it is neglected and enforced unilaterally, it is a “dictatorship”.
To “deify” someone would mean delegating absolute power, and justice and liberty would be lost forever.
Elon Musk’s similarities to Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, and Trump are palpable.
If they take power, it will have a extremely alarming an miserable end.
Such a sense of values may give rise to “absolute power” and allow “fascism”.
as a case study:
Enabling Act of 1933
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
When Hitler came to power, he unilaterally claimed that he had “dictatorship”.
Although there are opinions that the law was enacted by legitimate means, Karl-Dietrich Blacher argued that obtaining consent by deception or blackmail, arresting left-wing parliamentarians, and reforming state governments were clearly illegal.
Twitter ehm X is a privately owned company. This means the owner can (within the boundaries of the law) do with it whatever he/she likes, just like you can do with your personal property whatever you like (without anyone calling you dictator if you don’t want to share eg access to your bank account content with anyone asking). We call this “ownership right” and it’s a characteristic civic liberty (right of ownership) in any free democracy.
Otherwise I agree with your points, but those are valid for eg state owned assets, “governed on behalf of the people” or expression of freedom “in PUBLIC”.
But Twitter is not “public”, but a PRIVATEly owned asset. So there has never been a “right” to use it for “public” expression, just because you got an account, simply because it’s a private asset and not a public space.
When governments curb citizen rights, your points are perfectly valid, but completely wrong if someone just executes ownership rights upon his/her private possessions. There is also no right for anyone to enter you apartment at will to freely express his speech there, because your flat is not a public space. For the same reason The Sun or whatever tabloid doesn’t have to print your opinion on the title page, just because you want to express yourself in public. Get it ?
It’s exactly this kind of yelling about supposed losses of freedom, where there are none, that makes protests look irrelevant, if a REAL loss of civil liberties is at hand (as eg currently in the UK regarding encryption), because some people always yell and thus such behavior rather supports losses of freedom.
If you use Twitter ehm X, you do so, because Elon granted you permission to do so. This usage doesn’t give you the right to make any decisions about his private property, no matter what you think. Freedom of expression does not overrule freedom of private ownership.
Annotation – I don’t use Twitter and think Musk is rather the opposite of a genius, but I DO value civil liberties quite highly.
@Anonymous,
Legally, you are right. And it’s clearly stated in Twitter’s terms of service.
Even so, it is morally abnormal to take over an “account” that is in use by canceling it without permission.
It is customary (moral) to “contact and obtain consent” as a matter of course.
Furthermore, monetary compensation is also socially customary.
The defendant created a new account after realizing it was “no win in the legal battle”.
Since the topic spread, Twitter announced an invitation to visit Twitter, but it was refused.
It is undoubtedly an outrage act that destroys “morals: social conventions”.
@Owl
Well in a free, democratic state the rule of law is what counts, because everything that does not violate any laws is permitted = allowed. That’s in contrast to dictatorships where everything that is not explicitly allowed is automatically forbidden. So only the rule of law being valid is a characteristic of a free democracy.
Otherwise I agree with your point, and it’s morally indeed questionable, but in a free society you can be as much of a dick as you want to, as long as you don’t break any laws. That’s to a large degree identical with individual freedom, because there is always someone who is heavily against, what YOU are doing/saying/exhibiting/thinking/supporting (whatever that might be).
Sounds weird, but being free to do whatever you want (and be it being a total dick) is a characteristic of a free society. And that’s a good thing as otherwise the majority of the population would dictate what you’ve got to do or aren’t allowed to do, no matter if it would be legal or not. That’s a kind of group pressure that existed in the agrarian societies of the middle ages.
I’ll give you an example: did you go to church last Sunday ? No ? You didn’t ? WTF ? That’s totally unacceptable behavior .. you satanist…. burn the witch/necromancer at the stake. NOW
You might (from our current point of view) think that’s kind of funny. In some tiny villages such kind of group pressure still exists to some degree (well not the burning parts of course). Or drawing caricatures of certain religious figures if you live in Denmark. I guess you see why it’s so important to be allowed to do what you want (as long as it’s legal), no matter what others think. Right ?
Executing one’s freedom within a large group ALWAYS annoys some others parts of that group. Eg being gay annoys certain fringe parts of society and that can’t be helped, because without country-wide brain-washing/indoctrination as it happens in totalitarian dictatorships, there is no country-wide unique mind/opinion. Whatever you do/say/think. someone will deem that TOTALLY unacceptable. Humans are like that.
In a free society there are a multitude of believes and opinions and that’s a good thing, even though some extreme believes are of course troubling, but that’s the price we’ve got to to pay for freedom: it requires tolerance of what others do, and worse: it requires tolerance of what others do, even you we don’t like it (that’s the worst part, right ?).
In my opinion that’s a very small price to pay for being able to enjoy individual freedoms: some people will do things that other’s (eg you) won’t like and wow .. they will even get away with it, because it’s not illegal and thus their right to do as they please. A right you also enjoy and certainly use in other ways.
If you want individual freedoms, you’ve got to accept that some people will use it to do things that you don’t like. It’s that easy.
Another point is that “morality” is usually a highly relative point of view, so making “moral” judgements is more often questionable than not. Try talking with some extremist groups (left/right winger or radical fundamentalists) about moral values and you’ll see what I mean. I could make the point that you very likely earn a lot more that the average citizen of Burkina Faso and that, if you don’t donate at least 80% of your net income to them and that that would be morally terribly wrong.
I don’t make that point (for obvious reasons), but you see where this is going: if one claims a moral point regarding other’s behavior, one thinks he/she is always right. If others do it regarding one’s behavior, one always deems this to be totally absurd or a completely different situation yadda yadda yadda.
From that point of view: making moral suggestions is usually something highly questionable, because the one making that claim, claims to have the moral higher ground, which usually nobody has, because everyone acts (at some time and to some degree) amorally. Unless, of course, you are a saint, but in that case you are also dead.
@Anonymous,
I saw your reply.
There is no objection to the “intent” of that comment, and I agree with it.
However, your reply seems to digress from “my comments” and take a leap.
I say again,
For example, if your beloved account was suddenly canceled and you can no longer log in, can you keep your cool?
Elon Musk is obsessed with “X”, so he wanted to acquire it, but It is the same (obsessed about “X”) also the original owner. Rather than “Unilaterally robbing accounts in use”, it is fine to contact and obtain consent, and even young children will get angry if you do not do it.
This kind of thing has nothing to do with ideology.
It is a universal etiquette.
That’s what I’m pointing out.
That’s what happened to him.
From 2007, “an account that had been in continuous use for 16 years was suddenly closed”. Twitter is a major international SNS, but is such a thing allowed?
If it is asserted that it is “permissible”, it will be limited to “related parties and supporters on that side”.
@owl
I understand your point, and emotionally I’m completely inline with it. The problem is: that’s not how our society necessarily works, and if we try to enforce moral behavior, we’ll loose the freedom’s we (or at least most of us) do enjoy. It’s a conundrum, and the price we have to pay for freedom. Overall this way is far better, then unique behavior enforced by peer pressure (or even the state).
> I say again,
> For example, if your beloved account was suddenly canceled and you can no longer log in,
> can you keep your cool?
Absolutely. I wouldn’t be happy, but I also wouldn’t be surprised.
That’s primarily because I’m many things but not naive. If I sign up for a free (or even a paid) account, I know, that I’ll only keep it for as long, as it’s in the interest of the corporation providing it, not a second longer. If I, as a user, am no longer profitable, become somehow a burden (eg from a PR perspective), the business decides to kill of the service or I need to be gone for some other reason (as in this case the name of the account), I’ll be kicked out within seconds. Happens all the time.
A corporation is solely obligated to it’s shareholders, so they’ll terminate you, the moment it’s in their own best interest. Anybody expecting anything else is naive beyond believe, unless you have a valid, protecting contract that stipulates otherwise and can be legally enforced in court.
But the typical internet account user accepts the standard T&C (as otherwise he won’t get a service account) and thus has effectively zero rights to “his” account. This should be clear to any sane person. Losing a long-used account is unpleasant, but will sooner or later, for whatever reason, happen. It thus needs to be expected and requires having a fallback in place. (just like data, also services, tools and hardware need to be “backuped” to avoid downtime)
> Elon Musk is obsessed with “X”, so he wanted to acquire it, but It is the same (obsessed
> about “X”) also the original owner. Rather than “Unilaterally robbing accounts in use”, it is fine > to contact and obtain consent, and even young children will get angry if you do not do it.
> This kind of thing has nothing to do with ideology. It is a universal etiquette.
> That’s what I’m pointing out. That’s what happened to him.
Again, from an emotional point of view I absolutely agree. And even from a business perspective I agree, as this is (again) a PR nightmare (“major corporation bullies small helpless user”), but after the damage Musk has done to Twitter’s and his own public image (eg harassing a disabled ex-employee on Twitter), he’s probably far beyond caring about “image”.
Nonetheless, he has (like everyone of us) freedoms and thus has the right to behave like that. You don’t have to like it (and you certainly don’t), I don’t have to like it (and think it’s pretty dumb), but he can do so and so he does. And, at least within the bigger picture, that’s fine.
You, me (or in this case: Musk) do not have to adhere, to what my grandma would have called “decency”, as long as one stays within the boundaries of what the law allows, and in free societies that’s luckily a lot. Again, that’s the price we pay for being able to enjoy individual freedom and being able to live our lives the way we want to.
On the other side, Elon actually does pay a price for behaving like that: prior to driving twitter into the ground he had (for whatever, to me completely incomprehensible, reason) a kind of “genius” image and was worshiped as a semi-deity, or at least “savior of mankind” by a significant part of the uneducated population. This has significantly changed.
He also had to sell a lot of his valuable Tesla shares to acquire Twitter, but the Twitter value has at least halved since the acquisition. Meaning that he paid for his behavior with the loss of roughly 25b USD of his personal wealth, which is quite a hefty sum. Not because a court fined him, but because society fined him for his behavior, eg by moving to Mastodon, Threads or no longer buying twitter ads.
His credibility and image has severely tanked, making business for him in the future potentially more expensive (reducing his future wealth). In addition, he has by now probably more law suits pending than even Trump. (eg he seems to have violated several X-based trademarks in Europe with his spontaneous, global X-rebranding, which is likely to cost him even more money)
So, yeah his behavior is from a moral point of view, let’s say “questionable”, while it’s legally fine. From a business perspective his behavior is far from being smart, due to the caused social backlash (just look at the length of this discussion thread), but hey not everyone is smart and Elon obviously ain’t, but (luckily) there is no law against acting dumb either, as otherwise we all would have enjoyed being in jail at some point in our lives.
Just my 2 cents
@Anonymous,
I agree with your full reply.
Thank you very much for your very polite comments from beginning to end.
Best regards
Sentence Correction:
Before correction,
From 2007, “an account that had been in continuous use for 16 years was suddenly closed”.
After fixing,
Since 2007, “the active account that he has been using for 16 years was suddenly closed”.
“I don’t care what happens to Twitter (now X) because I keep social media at a distance and hate Elon Musk.
However, if the users continue to accept “Elon Musk’s words and deeds”, he will be definitely puffed up, and become a shameless dictator (although he has already shown his true dictatorship).
To “deify” someone would mean delegating absolute power, and justice and liberty would be lost forever.
Elon Musk’s similarities to Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, and Trump are palpable.
If they take power, it will have a extremely alarming an miserable end.
Such a sense of values may give rise to “absolute power” and allow “fascism”.”
———–
Readers have noted this, you keep echoing this, your truth, over and over. Personally, I don’t “hate” anyone I have never met in person. But that does not mean I won’t argue against them in a respectful way, i.e not by comparing them to some of the worst dictators and massmurderers the world has seen to date.