Broadly speaking it sounds a bit like Antitrust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_(film)

But I haven't seen it in quite a while so I'm not sure how well specifics line up.

Oh, interesting. I also initially read it as a thinly-veiled threat but I think you're right it was more of a "will i be assaulted". Still a weird thing to say.

Okay. If the article is misleading or wrong, it shouldn't be posted. If it is found to be incorrect after posting, is it better to fix the title and let the comments sort it out or to fully delete the post?

The title of this post is at best misleading and at worst simply wrong. From the source that OP linked in a couple other comments here (emphasis mine throughout):

Since the start of July, the app's downloads have fallen by almost 30% compared to the preceding two months, according to data from app performance tracker Apptopia. ... Twitter has gained usually 15 million to 30 million users a month since 2011, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It gained just 10 million users between August and September of this year. ... Visits to the web version of X, which still operates as twitter.com, fell since the start of the year, with global web traffic down 10% in August and US traffic down 15%, compared to a year ago, according to an analysis by Similarweb. ... So far in September, daily users are down to 249 million, a roughly 2% decrease... Monthly users are down by about the same percentage, now at 393 million users from 398 million in July.

That is emphatically not "loses over 30% of users in two months." That is, though, "signs of slowing growth" and "signs of the most recent round of dramatic announcements wearing off and folks moving on with their lives" which is why Musk is doing his best to get back into the news cycle.

Maybe OP should go ahead and update the post with a more accurate title to avoid spreading misinformation.

It's always interesting when someone is like "I wish I could go back to using smaller sites/forums or try some more open/ethical platforms, but I can't because all of my family are on Facebook."

Remember just 20 years ago when most of your family wasn't anywhere on the internet and that was just fine? I recognize that I'm saying this as a semi-isolated weirdo on some relatively obscure corner of the Internet, but it's okay to not be in constant passive contact with everyone you've ever met. Yeah it's more work to keep in touch with the folks you actually care about if you can't do so passively via Facebook, but that's how it always was. Email exists, texts and phone calls exist, meeting up exists.

If there are people you care about you can still keep in touch with them without using the same social media platform as them. Just like in the 90s you didn't need to read rec.models.railroad to keep in touch with your model train loving uncle.

I get that these connections (whatever one might say of their quality or tangibility if the interaction is just "look at picture, press like button") are important to people and one of the positives of platforms like Facebook, but if you're going to bemoan not being able to seek alternatives solely because the entire world isn't switching with you, it's important to realize that is a choice and not a requirement.

There were lots of games back then. And many of them were as bad or worse than the shittiest shovelware and template swaps we've got today.

Thing is, most people don't remember the 200 Action Games 3 disc pack at the bottom of the bargain bin cause they sucked.

I'm not disputing that there is more "stuff" these days by raw numbers, with the barrier to creation and distribution of games and such dramatically lowered by ubiquitous and easy to use tooling. But I bet the ratios of good games to shitty games won't have changed too terribly much over the years.

DMVs are sometimes where states will dump troublesome or underperforming employees they can't outright fire.

On the other end, the DMV is one of the places where employees have a job interacting with the public for sometimes-complex transactions. And, generally speaking, the public is dumb, unpleasant, and unprepared. Especially when dealing with low-level government beaurocrats who are telling them something they don't want to hear.

A 45 minute "round table" with multiple rando masto instance admins? That doesn't sound like enough time for the table to get very round.

It sounds more like 5 minutes introduction, 30 minute presentation by Meta, 10 minutes Q&A. But oops our presentation ran just a bit long, and I really do have a hard stop at noon so we really only have about 5 minutes for questions thanks for all of the valuable feedback we'll be sure to circle back offline.