Threads already has over 95 million posts
www.theverge.com
Are you on Threads?

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,

  • ForgetReddit@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    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.mlEnglish
    23·
    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.worldEnglish
      11·
      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.worldEnglish
        7·
        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.worldEnglish
          4·
          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.worldEnglish
            2·
            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???

  • RGB3x3@lemmy.worldEnglish
    232·
    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.worldEnglish
      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
      4·
      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.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    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.

  • Rubric@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    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.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      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.worldEnglish
        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.worldEnglish
        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.

    • Briongloid@aussie.zoneEnglish
      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.worldEnglish
        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).

  • needtoknowbasisonly@kbin.social
    7·
    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."

  • Arotrios@kbin.social
    71·
    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.xyzEnglish
      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.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      The barrier to entry is extremely low. If you have Instagram on your phone, you can just download the app and sign in using the same saved credentials, so you don’t even have to create a new account or type in your password.

      Given that, and the very large pent-up demand for a decent alternative to Twitter, I’m not at all surprised it’s doing well.

    • Perry@kbin.social
      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.worldEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    B̷̞̆o̶͙̎t̴͓̀s̷̻͝ ̶͈̓f̶̟͛o̴̢͋r̷͉̆ ̵͇̕t̴̥̄ȟ̸͍ė̴̻ ̵̱̈B̶̝͘ò̸̠t̶̽ͅ ̷̧͑Ǧ̴͉o̴̦̎d̸̮͊

  • regulatorg@kbin.social
    3·
    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

  • carp969@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    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.

  • Myrbolg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    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?

    • Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      IG has 1.2B accounts. So it makes sense they would have millions of Threads accounts created on day one. If Meta gets 1/3 of their IG account holders to create Threads accounts, they will equal Twitter in numbers. Twitter I believe has over 400M accounts.

    • jorge@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      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.

  • antricfer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I’ve signed up because I despise musk and the feed is quite different from the verse. I watch them both. Praying that they never merge as the day that happens is the day I’ll quit both and go back to mirc.

  • muftiboy@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year ago

    it’s millions of bot posts. and I’m sure Fuckerberg appreciates y’all spreading his pathetic PR for free and upvoting this shit

    • glockenspiel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        Eh, they serve pretty different niches. I joined it, and while it’s quite a lot of fun, it’s much worse for having more earnest and in-depth conversations. Reddit-style platforms really don’t have anything to worry about from it.

      • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        A lot of people aren’t for or against “the masses”, but rather there are specific people, communities and topics that they want to follow, and they may follow them wherever they thrive.

        Personally I’m not too convinced by this idea that “Lemmy is better because there aren’t so many people in it”. I look forward for it and Mastodon to grow. I’d rather if Meta doesn’t get to be the main replacement for Twitter, but if there’s where all the people I want to follow go, then I guess I’ll have to go there too. At least the Fediverse integration might serve as a middle ground so people can follow Threads users without being beholden to Meta.