Official Twitter Thread (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

I have yet to run into a particular COVID topic where the trial/study data was not publicly available. There were some that you had to pay for, but they are mostly (all?) out there. There is nothing being "hidden" when it comes to the vaccines or their contents that I am aware of. People want to piss and moan that their third party sources or SOME third party source isn't giving them complete information. Here's a thought, stop using those sources and go directly to the people doing the work next time?

When people like me did that, we were criticized for "doing our own research." By people on this forum, personally. You weren't here for that because you're like 23 or something. But there's a 1000+ page thread here, and another one in the PSF you can wade through if you'd like.

Actually, you should invest some time in going through those. I was firmly in the pro-vaccine camp, and I still am. Go and take a look at how people reacted to folks like me actually looking at original research. Take a good hard look.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I have yet to run into a particular COVID topic where the trial/study data was not publicly available. There were some that you had to pay for, but they are mostly (all?) out there. There is nothing being "hidden" when it comes to the vaccines or their contents that I am aware of. People want to piss and moan that their third party sources or SOME third party source isn't giving them complete information. Here's a thought, stop using those sources and go directly to the people doing the work next time?

When people like me did that, we were criticized for "doing our own research." By people on this forum, personally. You weren't here for that because you're like 23 or something. But there's a 1000+ page thread here, and another one in the PSF you can wade through if you'd like.

Actually, you should invest some time in going through those. I was firmly in the pro-vaccine camp, and I still am. Go and take a look at how people reacted to folks like me actually looking at original research. Take a good hard look.

I was part of that thread. I wasn't here all the time, but I followed. I don't remember people being criticized for going directly to the peer reviewed studies/data. If that happened, the people criticizing are morons. That's how it should be done. I do remember people who went with fringe studies not reviewed or validated over the others being mocked, and they should be IMO. I am pretty proud of the work I did on the subject and it was cool to be published with my mom on a couple things that have been cited here before.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

I never once argued that POV.

 

[uwillbsoon]

So I'm reading the testimony I think Zuck is referring to. It was a meme that basically says there will be a class action lawsuit in ten years for those who took the vaccine. The administration wanted it deamplified (it was the #3 vaccine content at the time). Facebook wouldn't because it was satire. Which is fine.

But the Facebook response was "it's humorous and arguably true"

I'm not sure how that's remotely "arguably true."

That's so far the only example I can find of something that Facebook thought was true that they were asked to deamplify.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

I never once argued that POV.

Good

It was probably THE dumbest argument/theory going in the beginning. I remember going into the lab and us discussing those absurdity daily. Just under that one was the one where people were using that VAERS system as evidence of anything.

 

[Ilov80s]

Just two points, it's highly ironic to me that X has been far worse as a media purveyor of info than the local new orgs for the LA fires. Probably not the first time, but it's really striking this time. Second, nothing tells you the state of X better than a Community Note calling an ad on X a scam (in fancy community note words).

Twitter used to the best news source in the world too

 

[Eephus]

Just two points, it's highly ironic to me that X has been far worse as a media purveyor of info than the local new orgs for the LA fires. Probably not the first time, but it's really striking this time. Second, nothing tells you the state of X better than a Community Note calling an ad on X a scam (in fancy community note words).

Twitter used to the best news source in the world too

Let's not romanticize the past too much

 

[djmich]

So I'm reading the testimony I think Zuck is referring to. It was a meme that basically says there will be a class action lawsuit in ten years for those who took the vaccine. The administration wanted it deamplified (it was the #3 vaccine content at the time). Facebook wouldn't because it was satire. Which is fine.

But the Facebook response was "it's humorous and arguably true"

I'm not sure how that's remotely "arguably true."

That's so far the only example I can find of something that Facebook thought was true that they were asked to deamplify.

I don’t think it’d hard to imagine vaccine related class action lawsuits? (Notwithstanding immunity granted to the producers)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

I never once argued that POV.

Good

It was probably THE dumbest argument/theory going in the beginning. I remember going into the lab and us discussing those absurdity daily. Just under that one was the one where people were using that VAERS system as evidence of anything.

Wait, I should correct this. It occurs to me now that you and I are on different wavelengths. Neither of us is wrong, but we might get our wires crossed.

When I say that covid was not made in a lab, I mean I don't think it was a Chinese bioweapon. That was a, let's say, point of view that was circulating at the time.

If I had to guess, my guess is that covid probably came from some bat cave in southern China, and it ended up on some lab technician's shoe, and here we are. It was "just" a lab leak, similar to others in the past. We got very unlucky this time.

However, my next best guess is "GOF-Gone-Wrong." When you say "made in a lab," I think you might mean that. You probably meant to cast shade on that view, and I definitely argued for the plausibility of that. As I still would, of course.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I also remember the arguments about "made in a lab" those were some of the dumbest and I couldn't really believe those discussions were allowed much less happening.

I never once argued that POV.

Good

It was probably THE dumbest argument/theory going in the beginning. I remember going into the lab and us discussing those absurdity daily. Just under that one was the one where people were using that VAERS system as evidence of anything.

Wait, I should correct this. It occurs to me now that you and I are on different wavelengths. Neither of us is wrong, but we might get our wires crossed.

When I say that covid was not made in a lab, I mean I don't think it was a Chinese bioweapon. That was a, let's say, point of view that was circulating at the time.

If I had to guess, my guess is that covid probably came from some bat cave in southern China, and it ended up on some lab technician's shoe, and here we are. It was "just" a lab leak, similar to others in the past. We got very unlucky this time.

However, my next best guess is "GOF-Gone-Wrong." When you say "made in a lab," I think you might mean that. You probably meant to cast shade on that view, and I definitely argued for the plausibility of that. As I still would, of course.

No...GOF was/is always a possibility. There's no evidence (so far) in the gnome/mutation analysis that this is what happened, but it's certainly plausible. The former is what I was talking about. It was one of the more popular conspiracy theories out there at the beginning once it was announced that this came from China.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

My feeling is that it was being studied, someone got infected and here we are. The first iterations of the virus were friendly towards human tranmission/hospitality.

 

[uwillbsoon]

So I'm reading the testimony I think Zuck is referring to. It was a meme that basically says there will be a class action lawsuit in ten years for those who took the vaccine. The administration wanted it deamplified (it was the #3 vaccine content at the time). Facebook wouldn't because it was satire. Which is fine.

But the Facebook response was "it's humorous and arguably true"

I'm not sure how that's remotely "arguably true."

That's so far the only example I can find of something that Facebook thought was true that they were asked to deamplify.

I don’t think it’d hard to imagine vaccine related class action lawsuits? (Notwithstanding immunity granted to the producers)

So you would call that a "true" statement?

If that's your entire case for "the government told us to remove things that were true" you would consider that a strong case? (Not saying it is Zuck's entire case but it's all I've found so far.)

As you said, it's not even possible today. And even Facebook qualified it with "arguably."

 

[Max Power]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

 

[tommyGunZ]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

 

[titusbramble]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

 

[Max Power]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

 

[CletiusMaximus]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

From what I can see neither of these is a community note - just people replying, right?

 

[Max Power]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

From what I can see neither of these is a community note - just people replying, right?

Looks like the note was removed. It had links directly to the United Way and Fire Fighters Foundation.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

From what I can see neither of these is a community note - just people replying, right?

Looks like the note was removed. It had links directly to the United Way and Fire Fighters Foundation.

OK I only saw it after the Note was removed. I’m not trying to be obstinate here but still don’t understand how Community Notes work or how they are an improvement over ‘fact checking’ or just replying. In all cases it seems to be someone disagrees with a comment and posts a counterpoint.

 

[Joe Bryant]

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

There is not an article, but I have definitely seen people trying to do this. For example:

x.com

x.com

X Community notes appears to be going a good job of updating links for donations to the California wildfires and adding context on what % of donations each organization keeps.

These are the small things that don't get covered by fact checks that are a net benefit to online platforms.

I’m interested - is there an article on this?

No article, but this was a tweet highlighted.

x.com

x.com

From what I can see neither of these is a community note - just people replying, right?

Looks like the note was removed. It had links directly to the United Way and Fire Fighters Foundation.

OK I only saw it after the Note was removed. I’m not trying to be obstinate here but still don’t understand how Community Notes work or how they are an improvement over ‘fact checking’ or just replying. In all cases it seems to be someone disagrees with a comment and posts a counterpoint.

I had the same question. This is my understanding of it. https://help.x.com/en/using-x/community-notes

It's not just someone disagrees and posts a counterpoint. There has to be enough people and they claim enough people "from different points of view" find the note helpful for the note to pass the threshold and be live. I'm assuming the "different point of view" thing is from their algorithm.

I do like that they share the algorithm open source.

Community Notes aim to create a better informed world by empowering people on X to collaboratively add context to potentially misleading posts. Contributors can leave notes on any post and if enough contributors from different points of view rate that note as helpful, the note will be publicly shown on a post. Sign up to become a contributor.

Community Notes are now publicly visible to everyone in the US. For more information, we have included responses to frequently asked questions below, but you can learn more through the Community Notes Guide as well.

This is an open and transparent process, that’s why we’ve made the Community Notes algorithm open source and publicly available on GitHub, along with the data that powers it so anyone can audit, analyze or suggest improvements.

 

[Desert_Power]

Article on an interesting trend I've noticed where many subreddits are banning links to Twitter: https://www.404media.co/hundreds-of-subreddits-are-considering-banning-all-links-to-x/

Saw this pop up in several different subreddits yesterday, especially sports ones.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Article on an interesting trend I've noticed where many subreddits are banning links to Twitter: https://www.404media.co/hundreds-of-subreddits-are-considering-banning-all-links-to-x/

Saw this pop up in several different subreddits yesterday, especially sports ones.

Someone PM'd here asking if we would also ban any links to X.

The answer is no. No popcorn here.

Unless something changes, I do not see us censoring links to social media sites that offer more information on the topic being discussed.

In fact, we regularly ask for links to be shared when someone posts they read or heard or saw something. I think it makes for much better discussion to see the actual content they are talkign about.

 

[mr. furley]

ban X links

 

[Desert_Power]

Article on an interesting trend I've noticed where many subreddits are banning links to Twitter: https://www.404media.co/hundreds-of-subreddits-are-considering-banning-all-links-to-x/

Saw this pop up in several different subreddits yesterday, especially sports ones.

Someone PM'd here asking if we would also ban any links to X.

The answer is no. No popcorn here.

Unless something changes, I do not see us censoring links to social media sites that offer more information on the topic being discussed.

In fact, we regularly ask for links to be shared when someone posts they read or heard or saw something. I think it makes for much better discussion to see the actual content they are talkign about.

Yeah. Definitely wasn't trying to suggest that here, just wanted to share since social media is such a hot topic these days.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Article on an interesting trend I've noticed where many subreddits are banning links to Twitter: https://www.404media.co/hundreds-of-subreddits-are-considering-banning-all-links-to-x/

Saw this pop up in several different subreddits yesterday, especially sports ones.

Someone PM'd here asking if we would also ban any links to X.

The answer is no. No popcorn here.

Unless something changes, I do not see us censoring links to social media sites that offer more information on the topic being discussed.

In fact, we regularly ask for links to be shared when someone posts they read or heard or saw something. I think it makes for much better discussion to see the actual content they are talkign about.

Yeah. Definitely wasn't trying to suggest that here, just wanted to share since social media is such a hot topic these days.

Some subreddits and other message boards banned X some time ago when it became necessary to have an account in order to see content. I've had a Twitter account forever so didn't notice when they did this. It can be annoying when someone provides a link to a story they're discussing, and you can't read it without registering.

 

[Desert_Power]

Article on an interesting trend I've noticed where many subreddits are banning links to Twitter: https://www.404media.co/hundreds-of-subreddits-are-considering-banning-all-links-to-x/

Saw this pop up in several different subreddits yesterday, especially sports ones.

Someone PM'd here asking if we would also ban any links to X.

The answer is no. No popcorn here.

Unless something changes, I do not see us censoring links to social media sites that offer more information on the topic being discussed.

In fact, we regularly ask for links to be shared when someone posts they read or heard or saw something. I think it makes for much better discussion to see the actual content they are talkign about.

Yeah. Definitely wasn't trying to suggest that here, just wanted to share since social media is such a hot topic these days.

Some subreddits and other message boards banned X some time ago when it became necessary to have an account in order to see content. I've had a Twitter account forever so didn't notice when they did this. It can be annoying when someone provides a link to a story they're discussing, and you can't read it without registering.

I think Tiktok does that too or did for a while. All of the platforms at least try to prompt you. One of the things making our internet more fragmented.

 

[fatness]

Someone PM'd here asking if we would also ban any links to X.

The answer is no. No popcorn here.

I don't think you should ban links to Twitter. But I do think you should make them appear differently. Most links to other sites appear with some abbreviated description of what they are, like "James Coburn and Miley Cyrus sing the songs of the Prairie" or something.

Links to Twitter just show an X. It's uninformative and in a thread with new information coming in it looks like a string of little tiny ads for Twitter.

I like Jersey Mike's but if I kept seeing little mentions of their name in many topics here I'd hate that just as much.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We're not able to make links appear differently than what the Xenforo forum software does for us.

This is what we get for the different platforms:

TikTok - Make Your Day

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DEi4TeCS8ed/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

x.com

x.com

The good news is it's super simple for the poster usually gives some context when they share. Easy to do and the poster can say, "Here's what I'm talking about ______

Or "I saw this on X" _________

If people don't know have some idea what the link will be from the post, they shouldn't click on it.

 

[Navin Johnson]

ban X links

 

[Eephus]

Can you make Twitter links display in German?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Can you make Twitter links display in German?

This is funny on multiple levels. Well done sir

 

[Riffraff]

Can you make Twitter links display in German?

Give you the 'iks'?

https://promova.com/content/german_alphabet_6746312b37.png

 

[Max Power]

I just saw the news that the NFL is prohibiting teams from having official bluesky accounts due to its active partnership with X.

 

[Ilov80s]

Free Speech business model in action

 

[djmich]

Free Speech business model in action

I have a few questions. What happened to the second bullet. His tweet implies that he received a notice and then the way his tweet is written he inferred that it was that tweet/cartoon which drove the notification. Does X typically send out notices and not directly refer the content in question? A tad skeptical about the free speech emergency here. Personally, I don't know why the cartoon wouldn't be allowed...but I'm sure the poster will provide a full transparent recap of what happens next.

 

[Ilov80s]

Free Speech business model in action

I have a few questions. What happened to the second bullet. His tweet implies that he received a notice and then the way his tweet is written he inferred that it was that tweet/cartoon which drove the notification. Does X typically send out notices and not directly refer the content in question? A tad skeptical about the free speech emergency here. Personally, I don't know why the cartoon wouldn't be allowed...but I'm sure the poster will provide a full transparent recap of what happens next.

Yeah very curious how exactly to verify the validity of a screenshot these days.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

There is no free speech emergency, just like there wasn't one prior to Elon taking over. These companies can do with their sites what they want. That's always been the case.

It should be the least newsworthy thing ever for Twitter to take down negative cartoons about Elon. I don't know why the poster even bothered with posting that unless it was to troll all the people saying that Twitter finally had free speech because of Elon. That's been false from the beginning.

 

[djmich]

I know there were a lot of people concerned about Twitters financials, it’s been widely reported that EBITDA has doubled since acquisition, despite revenue drop. Lots of optimism on increased advertising as well to drive revenue.

While imperfect, glad to see this important platform has turned profitable.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/banks-sell-5-5-billion-of-x-loans-after-investor-interest-surges-4b84f89c?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

[Mitchie]

I know there were a lot of people concerned about Twitters financials, it’s been widely reported that EBITDA has doubled since acquisition, despite revenue drop. Lots of optimism on increased advertising as well to drive revenue.

While imperfect, glad to see this important platform has turned profitable.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/banks-sell-5-5-billion-of-x-loans-after-investor-interest-surges-4b84f89c?utm_source=chatgpt.com

That article is pay-walled but not seeing that Twitter if profitable

New Insights Suggest X Is Struggling To Make Money

X may not have turned a profit in 2024.

www.socialmediatoday.com

 

[djmich]

I know there were a lot of people concerned about Twitters financials, it’s been widely reported that EBITDA has doubled since acquisition, despite revenue drop. Lots of optimism on increased advertising as well to drive revenue.

While imperfect, glad to see this important platform has turned profitable.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/banks-sell-5-5-billion-of-x-loans-after-investor-interest-surges-4b84f89c?utm_source=chatgpt.com

That article is pay-walled but not seeing that Twitter if profitable

New Insights Suggest X Is Struggling To Make Money

X may not have turned a profit in 2024.

www.socialmediatoday.com

Yah, profit probably not used well by me there. They’ve more than doubled ebitda, which is the go to measure for the operating health of a company, but I’m sure after interest payments they’re not profitable.

 

[Ilov80s]

There is no free speech emergency, just like there wasn't one prior to Elon taking over. These companies can do with their sites what they want. That's always been the case.

It should be the least newsworthy thing ever for Twitter to take down negative cartoons about Elon. I don't know why the poster even bothered with posting that unless it was to troll all the people saying that Twitter finally had free speech because of Elon. That's been false from the beginning.

It's only noteworthy to show again that his claims aren't to be believed.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

There is no free speech emergency, just like there wasn't one prior to Elon taking over. These companies can do with their sites what they want. That's always been the case.

It should be the least newsworthy thing ever for Twitter to take down negative cartoons about Elon. I don't know why the poster even bothered with posting that unless it was to troll all the people saying that Twitter finally had free speech because of Elon. That's been false from the beginning.

It's only noteworthy to show again that his claims aren't to be believed.

The evidence is out there. People will either accept it or ignore it. It's just piling on at this point IMO.

 

[The Z Machine]

There is no free speech emergency, just like there wasn't one prior to Elon taking over. These companies can do with their sites what they want. That's always been the case.

It should be the least newsworthy thing ever for Twitter to take down negative cartoons about Elon. I don't know why the poster even bothered with posting that unless it was to troll all the people saying that Twitter finally had free speech because of Elon. That's been false from the beginning.

It's only noteworthy to show again that his claims aren't to be believed.

The evidence is out there. People will either accept it or ignore it. It's just piling on at this point IMO.

There are plenty of people out there that think Elon bought Twitter and "saved it" due to Freedom of Speech reasons. No matter what claims of his are debunked, people seem to glom onto the "People were being silenced and now they are not."

 

[Sparky Polastri]

There is no free speech emergency, just like there wasn't one prior to Elon taking over. These companies can do with their sites what they want. That's always been the case.

It should be the least newsworthy thing ever for Twitter to take down negative cartoons about Elon. I don't know why the poster even bothered with posting that unless it was to troll all the people saying that Twitter finally had free speech because of Elon. That's been false from the beginning.

It's only noteworthy to show again that his claims aren't to be believed.

The evidence is out there. People will either accept it or ignore it. It's just piling on at this point IMO.

There are plenty of people out there that think Elon bought Twitter and "saved it" due to Freedom of Speech reasons. No matter what claims of his are debunked, people seem to glom onto the "People were being silenced and now they are not."

Agreed. It doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence we accumulate to the contrary, they will choose to live this narrative instead.

 

[Ilov80s]

There is no free speech emergency, just like there wasn't one prior to Elon taking over. These companies can do with their sites what they want. That's always been the case.

It should be the least newsworthy thing ever for Twitter to take down negative cartoons about Elon. I don't know why the poster even bothered with posting that unless it was to troll all the people saying that Twitter finally had free speech because of Elon. That's been false from the beginning.

It's only noteworthy to show again that his claims aren't to be believed.

The evidence is out there. People will either accept it or ignore it. It's just piling on at this point IMO.

There are plenty of people out there that think Elon bought Twitter and "saved it" due to Freedom of Speech reasons. No matter what claims of his are debunked, people seem to glom onto the "People were being silenced and now they are not."

Agreed. It doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence we accumulate to the contrary, they will choose to live this narrative instead.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think I agree. I think some people can slowly change their minds. There are people in abusive, unhealthy relationships that ignore the signs or make excuses for their partner for years before finally somethig makes them see the light and they move on. It can happen, just not as easily as we often hope.

 

[Wingnut]

Anyone else having issues?

X / Twitter down for a third time — live updates on the massive outage​

X was down — live updates on outage Musk blames on ‘massive cyberattack’

One minute X was up and the next it was down again

www.tomsguide.com

 

[SWC]

i just checked and it is down for me right now take that to the bank brochachos

 

[BeTheMatch]

Anyone else having issues?

X / Twitter down for a third time — live updates on the massive outage​

X was down — live updates on outage Musk blames on ‘massive cyberattack’

One minute X was up and the next it was down again

www.tomsguide.com

Yes. All day. No issues on Blue Sky

 

[fatness]

Anyone else having issues?

X / Twitter down for a third time — live updates on the massive outage​

X was down — live updates on outage Musk blames on ‘massive cyberattack’

One minute X was up and the next it was down again

www.tomsguide.com

Still not working for me. First day of free agency is a rough day for that to happen.