Instagram’s new Twitter competitor, Threads, is off to a rocket start. Mark Zuckerberg announced 30 million activated profiles, while internal data shows over 95 million posts and 190 million likes in less than one day,

  • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • ForgetReddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. Everyone move to Threads

    2. Elon is forced to sell Twitter for $50k

    3. Everyone leave Threads and go back to Twitter

  • kr0n@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    A new social network from Meta, without any privacy, with algorithms to show us what they want?

    No, thanks. I love Mastodon.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DrQuint@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • DrQuint@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, but it’s the NEWEST dogshit platform made by <company with sizeable marketing budget>. It could be the next big thing, dogshit or not! How can you or the likes of (checks notes) AOC possibly miss out???

  • Rubric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Briongloid@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The former Prime Minister of my country follows me on twitter as well

      Edit: also an actor from Scrubs, but not one of the main ones

      • Rubric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s so strange when a recognised public figure follows you. Personally, I feel almost estranged from it - it’s not the kind of life I live so it’s bizarre that it happened (even though I doubt Britney would ever see any of my Tweets anyways, as she follows ~350,000 people).

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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!”

      • Rubric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A few months ago, I moved myself onto a “live and let live” outlook on life. If people like things I don’t, good for them; I’m glad they can find enjoyment in what I can’t - it’s what keeps life interesting. I did once fall into the “x is better than y” and “popular = bad” pit, but using all your energy saying about how y is bad and x is good is just a waste of time when you could just be doing x instead and enjoying yourself.

      • Rubric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve not Tweeted in about 6 years, and have never Tweeted about her, or to her. I actually thought it would be a fake account when I saw “Britney Spears wants to follow you”, but to my genuine surprise it was actually her official account.

  • Arotrios@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • jorge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Perry@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    B̷̞̆o̶͙̎t̴͓̀s̷̻͝ ̶͈̓f̶̟͛o̴̢͋r̷͉̆ ̵͇̕t̴̥̄ȟ̸͍ė̴̻ ̵̱̈B̶̝͘ò̸̠t̶̽ͅ ̷̧͑Ǧ̴͉o̴̦̎d̸̮͊

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

  • regulatorg@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    As much as I dislike all the recent twitter changes, this gives Meta even more of a monopoly on social media networks

  • needtoknowbasisonly@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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."

  • Myrbolg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What are usual numbers on Facebook and Instagram? These numbers sound extremely high. Is the app being heavily talked about in your circles?

    • jorge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • carp969@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • dekatron@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Nero@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not sign ups “activated profiles”. It’s people using their same insta account to use Threads.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is literally how you sign up to use Threads, so I’m not sure this is a meaningful distinction.

      The low barrier to entry was a very clever idea on their part.

      • Nero@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s very much a distinction. It’s deceitful to claim there’s “millions of users who signed up/activated” It’s implying or coyly trying to say these are new accounts, especially to people who are on the outside and don’t know. Better to just say, “Millions went back to Instagram to activate their Threads account.”