It’s not forced on you. If you don’t download Threads and log in, you’re not on threads.
Although that’s technically true, it is clear what Meta is doing here (and even if most may know that the company sucks, I personally feel it is important report on things like that). Meta’s tactics should create a hype making people believe there are substantially more users than there actually are. The mass of people won’t recognize (or even care?) what’s going on I’m afraid.
What is Meta doing here? I’m not clear on what the point being made is.
If you’re insinuating that they are doing this to artificially inflate user counts, why wouldn’t they be reporting about how there are 2+ billion threads users in the first week?
They don’t need to manufacture hype - like Meta or not, in the first 96 hours they brought in almost 100 million users. Thats a third of Twitter’s entire active user base, in less than a week.
If it’s so obvious why can’t you state it clearly?
It seems like the insinuation is that Threads is artificially inflating user counts with “shadow accounts” that aren’t real - however it’s been clearly determined that they aren’t.
So, if it’s not that, then, again… what’s the “so obvious” point I’m missing?
Yeah, they aren’t creating shadow accounts. For a while if you logged into threads you even got a badge on your Instagram page with your sign up number on Threads.
Super shitty response to the question you still haven’t given an answer to, after I reiterated again what my understanding of the “so obvious” point was.
They obviously say ‘Join X on Threads’, although X has not signed up for Threads. Again, read the linked post. This is btw also what Meta is doing even if you don’t have a Facebook, WA or any account in Meta’s closed system. Someone posted an article, here for you again: https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-tracking-you-even-if-you-dont-have-account-888699
I end this conversation now. It should be very clear what point is here if one communicates in good faith, and I don’t have the time to engage with Meta’s PR writers (sorry, guys, but this is waste of time).
You claimed there are substantially more users than there actually are. Yet the article you provided is of a complete different topic.
And as many commentors have already said that those usernames are placeholers for their respective instagram users. Otherwise there would be a billion Threads users.
I called you out on your bullshit SO I am a Meta PR guy.
Although that’s technically true, it is clear what Meta is doing here (and even if most may know that the company sucks, I personally feel it is important report on things like that). Meta’s tactics should create a hype making people believe there are substantially more users than there actually are. The mass of people won’t recognize (or even care?) what’s going on I’m afraid.
What is Meta doing here? I’m not clear on what the point being made is.
If you’re insinuating that they are doing this to artificially inflate user counts, why wouldn’t they be reporting about how there are 2+ billion threads users in the first week?
They don’t need to manufacture hype - like Meta or not, in the first 96 hours they brought in almost 100 million users. Thats a third of Twitter’s entire active user base, in less than a week.
It seems we agree to disagree. The point I make is pretty clear, and it doesn’t make sense if you repeating your arvuments over and over again.
But the point you’re making isn’t clear which is why I asked if you could clarify - what is the point you’re making?
@0x815@feddit.de seems pretty clear to me buddy. I’m not sure what you aren’t getting.
If it’s so obvious why can’t you state it clearly?
It seems like the insinuation is that Threads is artificially inflating user counts with “shadow accounts” that aren’t real - however it’s been clearly determined that they aren’t.
So, if it’s not that, then, again… what’s the “so obvious” point I’m missing?
Yeah, they aren’t creating shadow accounts. For a while if you logged into threads you even got a badge on your Instagram page with your sign up number on Threads.
Oh god, I tire of you. Either trolling or just really dense. I’m going to block you and move on. I suggest you do the same. Jesus christ.
Super shitty response to the question you still haven’t given an answer to, after I reiterated again what my understanding of the “so obvious” point was.
Whatever you want dude, happy to block you.
Do you have any source for that?
Do you have any source for the 100m or so user count other than Meta? Just read the linked post.
So you don’t have any source?
They obviously say ‘Join X on Threads’, although X has not signed up for Threads. Again, read the linked post. This is btw also what Meta is doing even if you don’t have a Facebook, WA or any account in Meta’s closed system. Someone posted an article, here for you again: https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-tracking-you-even-if-you-dont-have-account-888699
I end this conversation now. It should be very clear what point is here if one communicates in good faith, and I don’t have the time to engage with Meta’s PR writers (sorry, guys, but this is waste of time).
You claimed there are substantially more users than there actually are. Yet the article you provided is of a complete different topic. And as many commentors have already said that those usernames are placeholers for their respective instagram users. Otherwise there would be a billion Threads users.
I called you out on your bullshit SO I am a Meta PR guy.