Threads is Now 'Booming', With 130 Million Active Users (techcrunch.com) 52
The Verge reports that Threads is "booming," according to figures shared by Mark Zuckerberg on Meta's earnings call, with 130 million active users a month.
TechCrunch reports: Threads is continuing to grow, having tripled its downloads month-over-month in December, which gave it a place in the top 10 most downloaded apps for the month across both the App Store and Google Play...
Threads famously had a record-breaking launch, reaching 100 million registered users within its first five days. However, the app saw its daily downloads decline starting last September through the end of the year. But in December, Threads once again returned to growth, likely due to the push Meta had given the app by displaying promos on Facebook that featured Threads' viral posts. Today, there are an estimated 160 million Threads users, according to one tracker...
The app could also be benefiting from its move into the "fediverse" — the social network comprised of interconnected servers that communicate via the ActivityPub protocol, like Mastodon... In addition, Threads recently announced the launch of an endpoint, allowing developers of third-party apps and websites to use a dynamic URL to refill text into the Threads composer. For example, there's now a website where anyone can generate Threads share links and profile badges. Marketing tool provider Shareaholic also just launched Threads Share buttons for websites, including both desktop and mobile sites. This flurry of activity around Threads is helping to move the app up in the chart rankings, though some inorganic boosts from Meta itself are likely also responsible for the jump in downloads, given the size.
TechCrunch reports: Threads is continuing to grow, having tripled its downloads month-over-month in December, which gave it a place in the top 10 most downloaded apps for the month across both the App Store and Google Play...
Threads famously had a record-breaking launch, reaching 100 million registered users within its first five days. However, the app saw its daily downloads decline starting last September through the end of the year. But in December, Threads once again returned to growth, likely due to the push Meta had given the app by displaying promos on Facebook that featured Threads' viral posts. Today, there are an estimated 160 million Threads users, according to one tracker...
The app could also be benefiting from its move into the "fediverse" — the social network comprised of interconnected servers that communicate via the ActivityPub protocol, like Mastodon... In addition, Threads recently announced the launch of an endpoint, allowing developers of third-party apps and websites to use a dynamic URL to refill text into the Threads composer. For example, there's now a website where anyone can generate Threads share links and profile badges. Marketing tool provider Shareaholic also just launched Threads Share buttons for websites, including both desktop and mobile sites. This flurry of activity around Threads is helping to move the app up in the chart rankings, though some inorganic boosts from Meta itself are likely also responsible for the jump in downloads, given the size.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm good with an X replacement. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm good with an X replacement. (Score:4, Insightful)
The analogy doesn't hold - hitting someone with a fist is an active, physical act. Despite what the chronically online may be pushing these days, words are not violence, and they cannot hurt.
You don't want the government or another entity determining what information is "harmful". I can promise that had we gone down that route they would have deemed most of the Civil Rights Movement or the Vietnam War protests "harmful misinformation". Every piece of knowledge in our future to be gained is "misinformation" until proven otherwise, but if there is no room to push new information, that proof will never come and we basically freeze our society into its current form.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm good with an X replacement. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter censors more now that Musk is running it. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/... [msnbc.com]
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/0... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry?
Those articles are about government censorship on Twitter, not the total amount of censorship by Twitter.
More government censorship is a natural consequence of Twitter itself doing *less* censorship of its own, and I'd argue a much better place to be. If there is censorship it is better for it to be explicitly government driven (and tracked and reports), rather than the way it was before -- a private company doing it directly and then colluding with the government without any explicit legal requests o
Re: (Score:1)
I rather like the idea of offering free speech rather than playing the censor
He still censors. He's just censoring the people you don't like, which might be why you haven't noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
But I rather like the idea of offering free speech rather than playing the censor, or kowtowing to our EU government's threats about "fake news" and such, with Elon refusing to censor X for them by proxy
Basically what I hear from that is "I liked twitter, but I wish it was more racist and had more Russian trolls"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He can say whatever he wants to justify his poor decisions, but anyone can see what actually has happened. First thing he did when he bought the company was to unban a bunch of racists and the only "government censorship" he's interested in stopping are the requests to stop Russian trolls interfering with elections
Active Daily Users? (Score:4)
Anybody have access to active daily users across these platforms?
I see poof pieces in popular media and paywall sites for advertisers. I get it, ADU is the metric they actually care about.
Facebook brags about 2.3B ADU which is quite impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
I see poof pieces in popular media and paywall sites for advertisers. I get it, ADU is the metric they actually care about.
Not really. The vast majority of internet services do not publish daily users as it's a wildly varying an inaccurate metric. Monthly active users are what matter to virtually all, this includes Meta about Facebook who publish first and foremost the 3.049 billion monthly active users at their earnings call and didn't even mention daily users.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue for Twitter is that advertisers view it as toxic. They don't want to advertise there because the owner promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories posted by Nazis, and tolerates that kind of thing on the platform.
Even if they had 5 billion daily users, advertisers don't want to sully their brands. The only ones that advertise there now are ones with nothing to lose, like crypto scams and something called "Jerk Off Pants".
I don't buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that 130 million is the app install base since they've been aggressively pushing it via links in Instagram, but I'd bet that most of those "active users" barely use it.
Speaking of buying:
...Today, there are an estimated 160 million Threads users, according to one tracker...
It's a multi-billion dollar global mega-corp. As if they couldn't afford to buy and sell a few "trackers" out there.
I can see it (Score:1)
Remember what X really does is let you contact, follow and stay in touch with organizations and celebrities easily. It's a blogging platform. Yes, it's
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that 130 million is the app install base since they've been aggressively pushing it via links in Instagram, but I'd bet that most of those "active users" barely use it.
You don't need to buy anything. You can ignore it, but MAU is the standard metric that is used across all social media / internet services. If they are lying about this number they can find themselves getting fucked by lawyers and regulators the world over as this figure actively drives investment and purchase (from ad companies) decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's "active monthly users". I.e. logged in at least once a month - "active user".
"Great growth." "Meta says it has 130 million monthly active users". "Great launch, 100 million users". "One source says it has 160 million users". "More app downloads".
Put all this together, and you get a picture of a social network that cannot maintain its userbase. I.e. lots of people get referred to download the app, get it, use it a few times and stop, coming back maybe once a month to see if anything changed for the bett
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
By the numbers: Truth Social's parent company, Trump Media & Technology Group, generated a total of $3.38 million in revenue for the first nine months of 2023. It reports a $49 million net loss during the same period, including around $26 million in Q3.
So it's a loser, hugely.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Both users are still happy with it.
Define active (Score:5, Insightful)
Because everytime I look at Instagram they show me Threads posts and I get notifications from Threads made by people I follow on IG. My guess is that they're counting a lot of unwanted participants.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
It's equivalent to 130 million people clicking on a link to something they wanted to see, and then closing out.
Re:Define active (Score:5, Insightful)
Because everytime I look at Instagram they show me Threads posts and I get notifications from Threads made by people I follow on IG. My guess is that they're counting a lot of unwanted participants.
Instagram has 2 billion monthly active users [socialpilot.co], so that's not it.
It's basically people clicking some link, which is probably most of Twitter's traffic.
The dangerous thing for Twitter is when Musk pisses off enough folks that bloggers and folks looking to make a public announcement of some kind start putting up Threads links instead. Then the numbers could shift very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
And? Does it matter? If you click on it and end up in Threads, you're active. Your eyeball gets targeted. Your data gets logged. Simply ignoring a notification doesn't make you active (otherwise that number would be an order of magnitude higher), and any other action you do is already enough to sell you to someone else which is ultimately the name of the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I mean I'm pretty sure Facebook video "views" always counted people scrolling past it (because of auto play), so I wouldn't put it past them.
I bought meta after the 20% sp jump (Score:2)
Good (Score:3)
Any competition is good competition.
I won't use Threads any more than I use Facebook, but I welcome anything that breaks a monopoly. No matter whether I agree with the person doing it.
Threads launched in Europe in December (Score:2)
I just delted my account (Score:2)
I used it to post my photography and managed to only have photo related stuff in my feed so was cool but after a few weeks its like eh bunch of people posting for reach around's. The amount of "if I didn't ask you to critique don't comment on my art work " "Unsolicited criticism in now welcome here..."
Threads (Score:3)
I dunno, I still think of Threads as a discount clothing outlet.
Re: (Score:2)
All the closed Twitter bots moved to Threads (Score:2)
Twitter is trying to rid itself of bots, Threads needs them to prop up its numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't need to - last I saw an estimate, over 20% of Instagram traffic is bots and in reality it's most likely a lot more.
Personally I made an account for commenting some of my friends pictures and I had over 300 followers without posting a single picture in less than a week until I made it private.
True (Score:2)
All Facebook services are boomering. The kids left long ago.
I once interview for FB (Score:2)
They went on and on about how they only think in terms of BILLIONS of users. After multiple micro-soliloquies from their staff during my interview, I'm going to conclude that 130 million users is a horrible failure by their own metric.
Just use nostr (Score:2)
Nostr fixes this
Twitter has won (Score:1)
Nobody seems to care about Threads. Apart from American liberals perhaps hating Musk, for not turning the platform a censored woke playfield, but only them.