You must log in or # to comment.
Yeah and as the article mentions, they’re not talking DAU/MAU numbers.
Which means 175 million is a big ol fat marketing lie.
I’d love to see how many people actually do more than use it once then go ‘meh’ and go back to scrolling instagram.
Especially after all the spam on Facebook like:
“RANDOM_FRIEND wants to get in touch with you on Threads™!”
“RANDOM_FRIEND just posted something on Threads™! Check it out!”
Etc etc
And then the interleaving of Threads™ teaser posts amongst Facebook posts with half a sentence and then “…” and any interaction with it prompts you to join threads so you can read the rest of that sentence that hooked you in…
Or the “easy and fun™” way that every Instagram account has a Threads™ account just waiting to be activated by you.
I wonder how much of a user base they would have without all the jamming it down user’s throats.
That’s curious, I use Facebook a lot for local and niche interest groups and have never seen any cross-promotion of other Meta services. Probably an EU thing.
Yeah this makes me so very very happy I do not use Facebook or Instagram, because that sounds like an absolutely awful experience which would make me very very annoyed.
Its all bots so activity looks high so the top 5 shareholders can jerk each other off
175 million bots, all letting each other know that there’s pussy in bio.
“Threads hits (175 …) users …”
This violence is unacceptable ! … /😋Not too hard to achieve after seeing how dead set Musk is on killing Twitter…
🤖x175mil
The Mastodon instance i use didn’t block threads so i blocked it myself. Don’t know why people are so hot and horny to be farmed by Meta.
Defederating/blocking doesn’t stop Meta from datamining you.
I genuinely dont know a single person who’s created a Threads account (usually through the instagram prompt), and continued using it since then
And 170 million are bots…
What would be a good alternative for Meta to use to user count to prove Threads is succesful?
