Threads only shows users who have signed in to Threads. If you mention an Instagram user in a Threads post that has not signed in to Threads prior, the mention is removed because it’s not a valid handle.
I urge you to read through the link in the original post to the Mastodon user who originally made this claim, where you’ll find plenty of people more eloquent than me explaining why this is inaccurate.
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?
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.
I too understand where you’re coming from, but I think it’s an important distinction, not semantics.
If Meta was simply creating a duplicitous profile for every Instagram user, that would be pretty predatory and misleading.
However, if that were the case, they would also be bragging about having 2+ billion Threads “users”.
It also implies that users could interact with these “shadow accounts” even if that person never used Threads, which is not the case.
As it currently works, if you try to mention a user who is on Instagram but isn’t on Threads, nothing happens, the mention is stripped because it’s not a valid handle.
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 probably even more simple than that - a single DB with a flag for threads_enabled = true/false.
They made it super clear in advance this is how it would work, the app is called “Threads, an Instagram app”, but as always people froth at the mouth for any opportunity to say “Zuckerberg bad”.
That’s not some big secret. Everyone knows meta sucks. We don’t need to make stuff up to prove that. They do that on their own.
There’s plenty of things to hate Meta for, but this is inaccurate.
You log into Threads with your Instagram account. There’s no “shadow account”, you’re logging into a second service with the same account and credentials.
Your ticket entitles you to a seat, even if you don’t pick it yourself. You’ll just likely get stuck with a less desirable seat like a middle seat.
Saying it’s a weak example of asshole design does not equate to defending Amazon.
It’s possible for Amazon to be extremely predatory and shitty, as well as this not being a very good example of how shitty they are, at the same time.
Still the undisputed throat goat.
The examples in the FTC complaint are all well and good, and as I already said, Amazon sucks and their predatory practices are well-known, but this specific example, the one we’re talking about on this post, is pretty pedestrian.
If the OP were to post the 7-step process it takes to cancel a prime membership, that would be firmly and wholly in asshole design territory, I know, I’ve had to go through it myself. But just posting a screenshot of a mild upsell that has a clear set of binary options on opposite sides of the screen and saying “Amazon bad” doesn’t really contribute much - everyone knows Amazon sucks, and there are plenty of examples of them sucking, this just really isn’t a very good one.
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?