Twitter's pivot to x.com is a gift to phishers
Twitter’s attempt to automatically rewrite all mentions of “twitter.com” to “x.com” briefly caused third-party domains like “carfatwitter.com” to display as trusted brands such as “carfax.com,” creating an obvious phishing vector before it was partially rolled back. Commenters see the incident as emblematic of deeper problems at X under Elon Musk: reduced QA and safety oversight after mass layoffs, a willingness to ship risky changes to serve branding goals, and a rebrand from Twitter to “X” that many view as strategically incoherent. Others argue that Twitter was already technically fragile before the takeover and that the platform’s survival with a much smaller staff shows how bloated big tech companies had become.
Bug behavior and rollout
- Discussion centers on X/Twitter replacing occurrences of
twitter.comin displayed URLs withx.com, but leaving the actual link target unchanged. - This caused domains like
carfatwitter.comto be rendered ascarfax.com, enabling highly convincing-looking but misleading links. - Several commenters note it seemed limited to the iOS app; earlier it may have been more widespread, then partially rolled back.
- By the time of the thread, the behavior appeared mostly or fully fixed, though some report lingering, partial issues.
Security and phishing implications
- Many see this as a serious phishing vector: users click what looks like a trusted domain but are sent elsewhere.
- Others emphasize that browsers still show the real destination after the click, but many users will not notice.
- Some ask why browsers and platforms allow any divergence between link text and URL, while others point out it’s essential for normal UX.
Engineering quality and process
- Strong criticism that this is an elementary mistake (string replace or poorly written regex) that should fail basic code review and testing.
- Multiple comments tie the incident to gutted QA, “move fast and break things” culture, or top‑down demands that no one can safely challenge.
- Some argue bugs are inevitable with rapid product change; others insist visible reliability has clearly worsened since the takeover.
Musk’s management and layoffs
- Debate over whether mass layoffs proved prior “bloat” vs. simply hollowed out institutional knowledge and guardrails.
- One side notes the site still runs at large scale with far fewer staff; the other cites frequent errors, outages, bots, and missing features as evidence of decline.
- There’s concern about using remaining users as de facto QA and about security with a small, pressure‑driven team.
Rebranding to X and strategy
- Many find the X rebrand baffling: Twitter’s brand and the “tweet” verb were strong; “X” is seen as generic, confusing, and hard to use in headlines and search.
- Some think the rename is driven by a long‑standing personal obsession with “X” and desire to erase predecessors, not by clear business logic.
- Others link it to a plan for an “everything app,” comparing it to WeChat, but are skeptical this will succeed, especially after brand damage.
User behavior and mental health
- Several commenters describe deleting Twitter accounts (or switching to LinkedIn) and report improved focus and mental health.
- There is broader reflection on social media addiction, the value of boredom, and Twitter/X’s growing irrelevance or “rotting” feel amid bots and propaganda.
Broader Musk debate
- Thread contains extended argument over Musk’s track record: some credit him and his companies with major achievements; others frame his success as hype‑driven, stochastic, or overshadowed by overpromising and erratic behavior.
- Moderation reminders note that this Musk meta‑debate has become repetitive on HN.