I agree that the wording is inaccurate, but some of the essence remains: the second “service” is forced on you. It’s somewhat as if anyone with a Fakebook account also automatically had a Whatsapp or Instagram account, or some permutation of this.
It’s not forced on you. If you don’t download Threads and log in, you’re not on threads.
This is akin to saying Google Calendar is “forced” on you if you have a Gmail account. They are separate services that use a common credential, you are under no obligation to use any or all of those services.
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 I join Threads and then immediately get a contact proposal from several persons, then it should be reasonable to assume that these people also have a Threads account. This is what I mean by ‘creating a hype’. It makes people believe there are more users than there are, and -probably more important- it makes people believe that others in their immediate environment are among these users. This is obviously not true, though. The hype is created while individual people are looking on their phones, the published user counts are additional PR.
I admitt these accounts are not what we typically call ‘shadow accounts’, but in the end this is nitpicking imo. They’re creating a highly biased picture.
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).
I agree that the wording is inaccurate, but some of the essence remains: the second “service” is forced on you. It’s somewhat as if anyone with a Fakebook account also automatically had a Whatsapp or Instagram account, or some permutation of this.
It’s not forced on you. If you don’t download Threads and log in, you’re not on threads.
This is akin to saying Google Calendar is “forced” on you if you have a Gmail account. They are separate services that use a common credential, you are under no obligation to use any or all of those services.
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.
@0x815 @312 You can make this argument evaporate by asking: how active are the people *on* Threads? How many posts are there?
If there’s not so many, but tons of users, that means that there’s not tons of “real” users.
@312 @CEO of Monoeye Dating
If I join Threads and then immediately get a contact proposal from several persons, then it should be reasonable to assume that these people also have a Threads account. This is what I mean by ‘creating a hype’. It makes people believe there are more users than there are, and -probably more important- it makes people believe that others in their immediate environment are among these users. This is obviously not true, though. The hype is created while individual people are looking on their phones, the published user counts are additional PR.
I admitt these accounts are not what we typically call ‘shadow accounts’, but in the end this is nitpicking imo. They’re creating a highly biased picture.
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).