This might be the only clear trend in large-scale seeming journalistic inaccuracy I've ever noticed. It's not just one major news outlet whose wording is callable into question, as you occasionally find someone raising an index finger about.

In the last week, I've noticed the BBC, Forbes, CNET, Yahoo and others continuing to refer to "X, formerly known as Twitter," as though it were no longer known as Twitter.

Twitter is one of the world's first major social networks. If Mickey Mouse were renamed to Charleston Murid four months ago, what fraction of people would currently no longer know him as Mickey Mouse? Even the ones who understood and accepted the renaming would. Practically everybody who knew him at all.

The Wikipedia page is still headed "Twitter" (and at least it more appropriately begins with "formerly called Twitter"). And it notes:

Although the service was renamed to "X", its primary website address remains twitter.com as of November 2023, with the x.com domain name redirecting to that address.

No doubt that will eventually end, but until the primary redirect works the other way around, it's interpretable as a mark of an incomplete transition.

Recently, I've seen the BBC instead use "X, formerly Twitter," at least implying a reference to the official product name rather than purporting to answer the question of whether people know it as such. So, responsible journalists, I'd suggest switching to that.

But if we must invoke "known as," let's please dispense with the inappropriate "X, formerly known as Twitter" and adopt the more accurate phrase "X, still known as Twitter."