Everyone move to Threads
Elon is forced to sell Twitter for $50k
Everyone leave Threads and go back to Twitter
I'm lowkey pumped about Threads even though I'll never use it because of the prospect of Elon having to sell cheap
Or
A new social network from Meta, without any privacy, with algorithms to show us what they want?
No, thanks. I love Mastodon.
Yeah, I really don't get it. I understand people staying on Twitter because that's sunk cost. They don't want to lose their notoriety. But what the hell is the point of using Threads? Everything I've read about it makes it sound awful.
This article said all I needed to know:
Imagine an active comment section on an Instagram post on someone you follow. Not great, eh?
Now imagine that same comment section, make it infinitely long, AND give users the ability to include images, videos, and links that you can’t avoid seeing.
That’s Threads.
What's there to not get. To you, the word "Privacy" is a concern. To most people, it's "that shit that never bothered me, why care?".
You're here, on this platform, you're already not most people.
It's not just the privacy though, I get that a lot of people don't care about that. It's that it sounds like a total dogshit of a social media platform.
Great definition. 🔝
Am I the only one who finds those numbers abnormally high? The sourcing also seems suspect - going through the verge posts, they're just quoting internal numbers with no sourcing.
Here's my question - it says activated profiles, not 30 million signups. If a large chunk of those are Insta and FB users, it seems more than likely that a lot of those profiles could be activated internally (I work with databases, this could be as easy as changing a 0 to 1 in a field in the profile table if they've got it integrated right). I'm also curious as to the content of the 95 million posts - how many of those are an automated "Hi I'm on threads!" message when the profile starts up?
That being said, I'm not curious nor stupid enough to actually signup and let them Zuck my data, but this smacks of astroturfing.
Instagram has more than 2 billion active users, and each (non-EU) Instagram user can conveniently login Threads just pressing a button. If they're fudging the numbers, activating only 1.5% of their potential userbase seems odd. Why not activating hundreds of millions of accounts?
As for the posts, an average of 3.2 posts/users for just the first day sounds reasonable to me.
Meta has several billion active users across their platforms. 30M is nothing to them.
Also don’t forget that we’re talking about a microblog, so it will inherently generate a large amount of individual posts, much more so than e.g Instagram. The quality is however likely very low initially and a lot of users are probably just trying out the current talk of the day.
I do suspect that Threads will probably grow to a few hundred million users before the end of the year; anything less would probably be regarded as a colossal failure for Meta.
I’ve only kept my Twitter because for some reason Britney Spears follows me. I would have gotten rid of it a long time ago before now. I have no interest in Threads. If people like it, great, it’s just not for me.
Tweet me baby, one more time.
If people like it, great, it’s just not for me.
I've gotta say, it's very refreshing to see this attitude, since the main attitude I've seen here is "This is popular with normies who listen to bad music and like dumb celebrities, therefore it's bad and terrible and I hate it!"
Well tell Brittany where she can find you on the next platform! 😁
See, this is why capitalism trends toward monopolies.
A small developer could create the exact same app down to the semicolon, but wouldn't get even a quarter of the traffic on release.
But because it's Meta (and somehow despite their awful record of privacy violations), the app gets over 30 million signups.
The internet is controlled by 4 companies and there's nothing we can do about it.
Except it is nowhere near a monopoly in the social media space. There are so many general options, and specific forums for topics, etc. That's not even to mention the fact that just because something doesn't provide the exact same service doesn't mean it's not a competitor. In person communication, VoIP, etc are also competitors to social media.
Unfortunately that is the power of marketing, an already established user base and a low barrier of entry. People who have Instagram accounts already have a Threads account, and people who have a Facebook account already have an Instagram account. It's much easier to get them to try than it is to get people to sign up for any Fediverse instance.
I just hope that once it opens to the Fediverse, people who are already there can feel more comfortable to make the leap and drop Meta. Because Meta is not going to let the users drive the experience anyway.
Euro here, still no sign of any threads
With their privacy policies they probably can't launch in Europe without getting fined into oblivion.
I'm sure they'll come around to making it work with our laws. Too big a market to miss entirely
And that's a good thing
I haven't been following anything regarding Threads so I assumed it was out here in Europe too, it's actually a relief that it isn't. Won't stay long like this, but it's something.
Like millions of others I went to check it out because the startup of a new social network is exciting.
It sucks. Mostly because of Instagram migration all of the spam and grift is there on day 1.
There's also this fake "positivity" vibe that they're trying to promote that is so fake and shallow with literally zero backup how would it be encouraged or grown despite "be positive" sort of sham messages.
Major disappointment. It literally does nothing new.
25 million spambots, 5 million users.
Or...
It is actually fairly popular. I'm sure there are more than a few bots, but a pretty huge chunk of people I actually know have been active on it.
Yeah that fake positivity came from Instagram. It's like staring at an alternate reality.
As much as I dislike all the recent twitter changes, this gives Meta even more of a monopoly on social media networks
It's not sign ups "activated profiles". It's people using their same insta account to use Threads.
Another article is claiming it's up to 44 million....
"Instagram could be a primary driver of Threads’ adoption. This is due to a badge assigned underneath your Instagram profile picture with a number. This number denotes your user number on Threads. These are thought to be chronological, with Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg holding the coveted “1” badge.
Dexerto has observed that the user numbers have now surpassed 44 million at the time of writing, and it’s likely that as more regions find that the app has launched, this number will continue to rise."
Bots. Lots and lots of bots.
First it's the number of sign ups, then it's the posts and likes, then it's the number of eyeballs grabbed and the ad revenue. This kind of metric chasing that these platforms encourage is one of the reasons why they become so toxic.
B̷̞̆o̶͙̎t̴͓̀s̷̻͝ ̶͈̓f̶̟͛o̴̢͋r̷͉̆ ̵͇̕t̴̥̄ȟ̸͍ė̴̻ ̵̱̈B̶̝͘ò̸̠t̶̽ͅ ̷̧͑Ǧ̴͉o̴̦̎d̸̮͊
it's millions of bot posts. and I'm sure Fuckerberg appreciates y'all spreading his pathetic PR for free and upvoting this shit
I don’t think it’s millions of bots, unless you are using that term derogatorily like some use “NPC.”
The media are pushing Threads with every fiber of their being. Tech-adjacent sites like TheVerge are absolutely unuseable right now because like 9/10 stories on their page are about how great Threads is and everyone should go to Threads and “hey, follow me on Threads.”
People need to acknowledge modern journalists/reporters/staff writers for what they are: influencers. That’s why they love Twitter. That’s why they love Threads. That’s why they demand corpo algorithms to boost their content and force it upon other people.
And that’s why they repeat a lie about the fediverse so insistently: that it is hard to get into. It is so hard to pick one of the top 2 largest sites and give them a username, password, and sometimes an email address. Journalists/writers generally don’t like Mastodon because it doesn’t force anything onto users. That means they have to organically earn a following.
But Meta will just give it to them by forcing users to see their posts.
I hardly believe anyone here will be jumping ship, after all if you're here, you're not looking for masses..
As the numbers get higher, my interest gets less and less.
A good example of the usefulness of social media platforms is tiktok. To start with it was a pointless platform, full of the young and beautiful dancing to shit music. It's still has plenty of that, but if you use the search function it has so reasonable content.
But threads can't be useful yet as nobody has figured out the application yet. Give it six months it might be okay but not yet.
People are annoyed at the changes and decrease in content quality. It makes Instagram in a healthy market to destroy Twitter.
What are usual numbers on Facebook and Instagram? These numbers sound extremely high. Is the app being heavily talked about in your circles?
Instagram has 2 billion active users. So only 1.5% of users have activated Threads.
These numbers aren't extremely high, we just don't realize the scale of the world outside our little fedi-bubble.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
