Threads Now Has More Than 400 Million Monthly Active Users 45
Meta's Threads has surpassed 400 million monthly active users, adding 50 million in the last quarter and closing the gap with rival X in mobile daily usage. "As of a few weeks ago [there are] more than 400 million people active on Threads every month," said Instagram head Adam Mosseri. "It's been quite the ride over the last two years. This started as a zany idea to compete with Twitter, and has evolved into a meaningful platform that fosters the open exchange of perspectives. I'm grateful to all of you for making this place what it is today. There's so much work to do from our side, more to come." TechCrunch reports: X, meanwhile, has north of 600 million monthly active users, according to previous statements made by its former CEO, Linda Yaccarino. Recent data from market intelligence provider Similarweb showed that Threads is nearing X's daily app users on mobile devices. In June 2025, Threads' mobile app for iOS and Android saw 115.1 million daily active users, marking a 127.8% increase compared to the previous year. On the other hand, X reached 132 million daily active users, reflecting a 15.2% year-over-year decline.
However, Similarweb found that X's worldwide daily web visits are well ahead of Threads, as the [...] social network saw 145.8 million average daily web visits worldwide in June, while Threads had just 6.9 million.
However, Similarweb found that X's worldwide daily web visits are well ahead of Threads, as the [...] social network saw 145.8 million average daily web visits worldwide in June, while Threads had just 6.9 million.
Meta[stasize] has become malignant (Score:5, Insightful)
Meta's Threads has surpassed 400 million monthly active users, adding 50 million in the last quarter
The world's biggest Privacy Rapist is growing out of control. Avoid any contact.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Threads has surpassed 400 million monthly "users" (Score:5, Insightful)
... and roughly half are bots.
Re: (Score:3)
So are twitter's so nothing new there.
Re: (Score:2)
Now talk about twitter er excuse me “x”.
Re: (Score:2)
That still leaves 200 million useful idiots.
What am I missing? (Score:3)
I've spent time on places like Slashdot, Kuro5hin, some musician forums, some hobby forums, but I never really got the appeal of the big social media blitzkrieg style sites. And they just seem to get more and more and more popular. To the point they have sway over large swaths of public opinion. I tried chatting with younger folks about it, and it seems like even they aren't happy about it. A couple I was pretty friendly with a year or so back I asked why, if they don't like it, they insist on following them. They said they had to, and when I pressed them and asked who told them they had to, they said, "Society." As if there's some unending pressure on them to follow these social media trends and if they don't they'll literally fall off the Earth, and fail to be a part of anything.
If nobody using these sites likes them, how do they continue to thrive? I don't get the appeal of doing things you don't enjoy. Especially if no one is paying you to do it. I mean, I go to work and don't particularly enjoy that, but at least it gives me enough pay to get by. What's the incentive of social media?
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook is at least supposed to be where you can follow friends and family. Lately though, it fills your feed with so much algorithmically recommended bullshit that it just feels like Yahoo's homepage with a worse UI. Around the time they started doing that is when I stopped regularly checking their app.
X and various microblogging clones (BlueSky, Threads, and that God-awful thing you-know-who started when he got booted from Twitter) mostly seem to be about doom scrolling, rage bait, and keeping up with
Re: (Score:2)
Microblogging social media in particular like Twitter or Threads or Bluesky in my opinion I thinkwhile both are social media that they're a distict class that we can't compare to say, Facebook or even Instagram or TikTok. They're far less personal and much more purely in the online world. Twitter at it's peak was probably the most "metaverse" we've gotten.
They're also far more relevant, I mean let's be real before 2016 the saying was "Twitter isn't real life". Wooo doggies were we wrong about that one.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to keep it that way, so I won't name it.
Re: (Score:2)
they said, "Society."
If you want to, say, easily contact a local tradesman, check updated data of local companies (timetable/menu), know of any sports or cultural event of your area, be part of some volunteer effort (cleaning the beach, rescue animals...), sell you old stuff second hand... you use Facebook. Maybe you can find the information elsewhere, but this is not how the thing is done today.
I'm 45+ and I get pressure from same-age colleagues, heck even from my oldest family members, to register on whatsapp. I can refuse ea
Re: (Score:2)
I've spent time on places like Slashdot, Kuro5hin, some musician forums, some hobby forums, but I never really got the appeal of the big social media blitzkrieg style sites. And they just seem to get more and more and more popular. To the point they have sway over large swaths of public opinion. I tried chatting with younger folks about it, and it seems like even they aren't happy about it. A couple I was pretty friendly with a year or so back I asked why, if they don't like it, they insist on following them. They said they had to, and when I pressed them and asked who told them they had to, they said, "Society." As if there's some unending pressure on them to follow these social media trends and if they don't they'll literally fall off the Earth, and fail to be a part of anything.
If nobody using these sites likes them, how do they continue to thrive? I don't get the appeal of doing things you don't enjoy. Especially if no one is paying you to do it. I mean, I go to work and don't particularly enjoy that, but at least it gives me enough pay to get by. What's the incentive of social media?
Forums like Slashdot, et al. are usually speaking about specific subjects to like minded individuals. There's a common denominator beyond the lowest one. Ostensibly at least.
I've been members of forums for years before Twitter or Facebook farted into existence and will be for years after they've consigned themselves into irrelevance. The appeal of something like Twitter is vain and vapid, the kind of person who speaks loudly in public or always thinks you want their 2p (2.6 cents) and will never hesitate
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing more followers, start drinking the koolaid and you'll get hooked.
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing more followers, start drinking the koolaid and you'll get hooked.
Why would I want online followers? They scrutinize everything you put up looking for the moment you screw up so they can roast you into oblivion. I've already got a family to do that.
Facebook (Score:2)
Again? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Half the news stories I see embed a Tweet and roughly none embed a Thread (what's the correct singular?).
Maybe it's relevant outside of news?
Re: (Score:2)
Competition is a good thing (Score:3)
I don't care for X or Threads or BlueSky or Mastodon, but competition is a good thing. It tends to motivate companies to keep working on their product. That's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a good thing when the product is more successful the more it foments rage, divisiveness, and misinformation? It seems like Zuckerberg concluded that he needed to compete with Twitter by adding 100% more fascism. What makes the product "better" for them is worse for society.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who think Threads is fomenting fascism, are people who are already tormented with rage, divisiveness, and misinformation. There is nothing fascist about Threads, if anything, Musk is the one promoting fascism. By the way, fascism has an actual meaning, it's not just a derogatory word that can be applied to whatever ideology you don't like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Which of these characteristics, exactly, do you feel Threads promotes?
X specifically promotes a dictatorial leader (Trump
400 million monthles with 390 million bots (Score:1)
Nothing like Facebook "AI" bots to be your 12 friends!
Accounts, not People (Score:3)
There are 8.2 billion people on Earth. According to Meta, 400 million people use Threads every month.
That's 4.87% of the GLOBAL population log into Threads at least once per month?
Nearly one in twenty living human beings use Threads every month?
I call bullshit. I work at a major American university and I've literally never heard anyone mention Threads-- students or employees.
sig fig fail (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not correct.
400/8200 = 0.0487804878 or 4.87804878%.
To be fair, I should have rounded up the hundredths part of the percentage instead of truncated. As a result, my math is off by .002%, but yours is off by .123%.
I'll stick with my math.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how math works. You can't have 2 apples shared among 3 people and each person receive 100% of an apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you link directly to the evidence of my correct use.
An exact number has an infinite number of significant figures.
If the number of apples in a bag is 4 (exact number), then this number is 4.0000... (with infinite trailing zeros to the right of the decimal point). As a result, 4 does not impact the number of significant figures or digits in the result of calculations with it.
There is no question of precision in counting humans and thus every 1 human can be represented as 1.000000 humans. When dividing populations to find a proportion, you have use as many decimal places as you see fit.
Kindest regards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Accounts, not People (Score:4, Informative)
The answer is simple: Threads is directly integrated (tho shittily) into Instagram, so you see Threads posts and some messages on Instagram. And IG most certainly does have the userbase. I believe FACEBOOK (erm, i mean, Meta) is using this to inflate their numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting claim. Do you have something to back it up, or do you just believe this to make you feel better about not knowing who else may be interested in a platform you're not interested in?
For the record I call bullshit on your claims. Meta maintains different accounts and logins for all its systems even if they are linked together in the overall meta account. Threads posts on Instagram are nothing more than adverts to get Instagram users to adopt Threads. You just believe it in your soul that it isn't w
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit.
I don't. It's a small number. The internet is wide reaching in ways that first world countries refuse to comprehend. In many cases the worst 3rd world shitholes are more internet addicted than anyone else.
I work at a major American university
There's only 330 million Americans. I know you think you're top shit, but you're a small player in the numbers game of the global population. I suspect you may not know anyone mention WeChat either despite the fact there are 4x more MAUs of that platform than there are Americans - and most Americans wouldn
And where are these 400 million people at? (Score:2)
There's no way this number is real.
This tells you exactly 2 things (Score:2)
This tells you exactly 2 things:
1 - ~400 million people dislike Elon Musk enough to setup a Threads account they're not going to use.
2 - X users are not leaving X.
The ones who don't like Musk are staying on X anyway.
Maybe they don't really care as much as they say they do. Maybe X is better. Maybe network effects are keeping everyone on X.
Whichever, maybe Musk didn't waste as much $ on Twitter as we thought he did.
And it still sucks and is full of 200M bots (Score:3)
Why are people still on social media? (Score:2)
Nothing has ever made me feel as alone and out of touch with society as social media.
People do not ever discuss things on social media. It's always just droping comenrs in passing. Nobkdy reads what you wrote and if they do, they usually just interpret it in a way that gives them mos opportunity to disagree and be outraged.
What is the use of social media?
6.9*30400 (Score:1)
I don't trust similarweb for having accurate numbers. Where do they come up with their numbers anyway?
I definitely don't trust meta for giving accurate numbers.
But at any rate at SimilarWeb's 6.9 million daily unique * 30 days, even if every day a different set of 6.9 million people log in, that is still less than the 400 unique monthly unique users. My guess is the truth lies between the two lies.