Meta’s new text-based social app Threads has quickly gained 100 million users since launching last week, which appears to be negatively impacting traffic on Twitter. According to web analytics, Twitter traffic declined 5-11% over the first two days Threads was available compared to the previous week. Threads was able to grow rapidly by allowing users to sign up with their existing Instagram accounts and bring over some of their followers. However, Threads has not yet launched in Europe due to regulatory issues. The fast growth of Threads may solidify its position as a real competitor to Twitter, which has over 238 million daily active users.

  • Stormyfemme@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t think that meta turning into even more of a global social megacorp that controls everything a lot of people seee and interact with day to day is a good thing tbh.

    • Feanor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most people happily exchange one master for another without thinking much about it

      • Ocean@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be fair, the change isn’t really affecting them, so why should they care. As long as they still have their favourite celebs it doesn’t really matter to them who owns the platform

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah - stuff like this should REALLY be public infrastructure

      I know a lot of people are opposed to the state running things but I really wouldn’t mind if there was a well-managed state-run federated instance for all of this

      at least with Matrix Europe is already doing something like this since it’s the de-facto-standard for a lot of the internal chats - but there really needs to be a push to make it more popular.

      Having the kind of “lock-in” that Meta has where their userbase alone is an argument of using their service is horrible since it makes every competition futile…

      • Miocene@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        From the perspective of someone in the UK, the ongoing shift in government and society towards openly discriminatory/suppressive policies aimed at some minorities (trans people, certain ethnic/cultural groups) and the accompanying moral panics to that effect make the idea of the state running, monitoring and controlling social media as a utility a bit terrifying - particularly for something so fundamental to modern life.

        A lot of the issues with centralised social media in private hands would just be intensified if the state were directly running the show - it can’t be trusted to act as a benign, responsible steward.

        • DynamoSunshirtSandals@possumpat.io
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          No reason the state can’t run their own Mastodon instance. Then they don’t have to moderate anything except the comment sections on their own pages, but everyone can consume the content as they please.

          I live in a region of the US recently effected by a freak natural disaster. The US Army Core of Engineers announced at 2AM last night that they might have to release water from a dam, adding to the floodwaters in an already flooded downtown near me. On Twitter. Which you can’t view unless you create an account, and even then you might get rate limited. That’s not an acceptable availability for a public emergency announcement.

          • that_one_guy@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, having state-run instances of federated social media would be an excellent way to both legitimize the fediverse and remove some of the control that these mega-corporations have. There’s no reason why privately- or corporate-run instances could not exist alongside these instances, and would still serve to combat potential state or corporate censorship.

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The logic of what you’re saying is that the executive teams Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg would provide better leadership for the UK than the current people.

          I mean it’s a low bar, but I wouldn’t go that far.

          • Miocene@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’d say that, honestly. Comfortably so, even - if the large private providers are acting badly, at least there’s the potential of smaller private groups setting up their own.

            Services directly managed by the state tend to require adherence to a government’s political preferences - where something like the idea of social media as a state-owned utility is concerned, the reality of that would inevitably trend in unfortunate directions for minorities that the government has decided to consider a problem.

            • Obi@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It really sucks that this is a legit concern in the UK these days, I’m sorry.

      • Creesch@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Today I saw that my countries government has started a mastadon instance, which is pretty neat. Previously they’ve used twitter for some communication but they got some flack for that recently.