That's a two year old article and X is the #1 news app today. How can you possibly construe that as "shrinking fast" if two years later it's in the top spot literally today? It seems like wishful thinking on your part rather than being reasonable based on first principles and the data at hand, from where I'm sitting.
The ranking compiled on Wikipedia is from a couple months ago. X is now behind Pinterest, Reddit, and LinkedIn (and of course, the major social players). Also, why would it be "wishful thinking"?
BTW, on US iOS App Store, Claude today is way ahead of Chrome, Google Maps, YouTube, Gmail, TikTok, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Surely you don't think it means it's used by more people.
Again, the ranking from Apple is from today. Not "a couple months ago". And again, it's #1 while reddit is #4. So which is incorrect, Apple, or Wikipedia? It has to be one of them.
>Also, why would it be "wishful thinking"?
Because you've Motte & Balley'd twice now, each time in the direction of downplaying X's success. Because X is objectively doing great. #1st place is objectively great.
>BTW, on US iOS App Store, Claude today is way ahead of Chrome, Google Maps, YouTube, Gmail, TikTok, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Surely you don't think it means it's used by more people.
Are any of those news apps? This is the third Mott & Bailey. Again in the direction of denigrating X with bad data. So first principles and neutral data sourcing cannot be the reason for the inaccuracies - I dare say lies. It's flailing at this point.
The discussion is about trends, and the most recent datapoint shows it at a point of primacy when the argument was it was in decline two years ago. Clearly that claim was incorrect.
I'm not saying it's "fully dead", but it clearly lost the cultural relevance and impact it once had.