My partner just created her #Threads account and the account that showed up on top as suggestion to follow was mine. However, I don't have a Threads account.
Basically, anyone who has an Instagram account, #Meta is automatically creating a shadow account for them and also allowing users to follow those shadow accounts. My partner had tonnes of follow requests as soon as she made the account.
I agree that the wording is inaccurate, but some of the essence remains: the second “service” is forced on you. It’s somewhat as if anyone with a Fakebook account also automatically had a Whatsapp or Instagram account, or some permutation of this.
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.
Nah its more like having Telegram prompt me “Jay is on Telegram, say Hi to Jay” when he hasn’t created an account or joined. Currently Telegram only shows those who actively joined. This is the point of the post.
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I urge you to read through the link in the original post to the Mastodon user who originally made this claim, where you’ll find plenty of people more eloquent than me explaining why this is inaccurate.
I followed the link as you suggested. I found a slight correction on the way it works.
A “shadow account” was some layperson’s attempt to describe what happened. That seemed clear to me immediately. It also seems that Threads and Instagram are much more intertwined than users expect.
I understand why this would upset people! I was furious when I tapped one screen wrong and connected my Facebook and Instagram accounts. It can’t be undone. It changed a profile picture. I didn’t quite become angry enough to delete both, but I stopped using them.
Google is creating SHADOW Google calendar accounts for you if you use Gmail! Look! I sent my friend a calendar invite but they’ve never even logged into Google calendar!
I get what you’re saying. From my point of view we’re just playing on the semantics of “service” and “app” here. I had indeed the same problem with Google and Hangouts.
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.
Although that’s technically true, it is clear what Meta is doing here (and even if most may know that the company sucks, I personally feel it is important report on things like that). Meta’s tactics should create a hype making people believe there are substantially more users than there actually are. The mass of people won’t recognize (or even care?) what’s going on I’m afraid.
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.
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?
Yeah, they aren’t creating shadow accounts. For a while if you logged into threads you even got a badge on your Instagram page with your sign up number on Threads.
Contrast that to this thread here - both of you have made that in this thread in a few hours alone, and I’m knocking up against that.
It’s a smart wager to assume that the number of users is inflated. Even if you didn’t know the bit about shadow accounts, that ratio kinda fails the sniff test.
The lemmy instance I’m on (lemm.ee) has 10.2k users and 32.1k comments - a near identical ratio. By that logic are user counts on my Lemmy instance inflated?
Why does a 3:1 ratio of posts:users not pass the sniff test?
Are you assuming a linear relationship to each user and number of posts? Some users will create an account and post once or not at all, other users will create an account and post an above-average number of posts.
And again, there are no shadow accounts - even the OP agrees to this understanding.
EDIT: expanding on this further, if you were to use a more accurate comparison which would be posts on Lemmy as opposed to comments, there are 4.53k posts and 10.2k users, a 1:2 ratio of posts to users on my instance.
Is this because my Lemmy instance is flooded with fake users, or simply because a lot of people like to lurk/consume content and not post their own?
I agree that the wording is inaccurate, but some of the essence remains: the second “service” is forced on you. It’s somewhat as if anyone with a Fakebook account also automatically had a Whatsapp or Instagram account, or some permutation of this.
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.
Nah its more like having Telegram prompt me “Jay is on Telegram, say Hi to Jay” when he hasn’t created an account or joined. Currently Telegram only shows those who actively joined. This is the point of the post.
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.
I followed the link as you suggested. I found a slight correction on the way it works.
A “shadow account” was some layperson’s attempt to describe what happened. That seemed clear to me immediately. It also seems that Threads and Instagram are much more intertwined than users expect.
I understand why this would upset people! I was furious when I tapped one screen wrong and connected my Facebook and Instagram accounts. It can’t be undone. It changed a profile picture. I didn’t quite become angry enough to delete both, but I stopped using them.
Ok, thanks for the info
Google is creating SHADOW Google calendar accounts for you if you use Gmail! Look! I sent my friend a calendar invite but they’ve never even logged into Google calendar!
I get what you’re saying. From my point of view we’re just playing on the semantics of “service” and “app” here. I had indeed the same problem with Google and Hangouts.
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.
Although that’s technically true, it is clear what Meta is doing here (and even if most may know that the company sucks, I personally feel it is important report on things like that). Meta’s tactics should create a hype making people believe there are substantially more users than there actually are. The mass of people won’t recognize (or even care?) what’s going on I’m afraid.
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.
It seems we agree to disagree. The point I make is pretty clear, and it doesn’t make sense if you repeating your arvuments over and over again.
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?
@0x815@feddit.de seems pretty clear to me buddy. I’m not sure what you aren’t getting.
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?
Yeah, they aren’t creating shadow accounts. For a while if you logged into threads you even got a badge on your Instagram page with your sign up number on Threads.
Oh god, I tire of you. Either trolling or just really dense. I’m going to block you and move on. I suggest you do the same. Jesus christ.
@0x815 @312 You can make this argument evaporate by asking: how active are the people *on* Threads? How many posts are there?
If there’s not so many, but tons of users, that means that there’s not tons of “real” users.
The last update to my knowledge that included post counts was 30M users, 95M posts.
Edit to include reference: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/6/23786108/threads-internal-activity-data-exclusive-instagram-meta
@312 So what, an average of 3 posts a person?
Contrast that to this thread here - both of you have made that in this thread in a few hours alone, and I’m knocking up against that.
It’s a smart wager to assume that the number of users is inflated. Even if you didn’t know the bit about shadow accounts, that ratio kinda fails the sniff test.
The lemmy instance I’m on (lemm.ee) has 10.2k users and 32.1k comments - a near identical ratio. By that logic are user counts on my Lemmy instance inflated?
Why does a 3:1 ratio of posts:users not pass the sniff test?
Are you assuming a linear relationship to each user and number of posts? Some users will create an account and post once or not at all, other users will create an account and post an above-average number of posts.
And again, there are no shadow accounts - even the OP agrees to this understanding.
EDIT: expanding on this further, if you were to use a more accurate comparison which would be posts on Lemmy as opposed to comments, there are 4.53k posts and 10.2k users, a 1:2 ratio of posts to users on my instance.
Is this because my Lemmy instance is flooded with fake users, or simply because a lot of people like to lurk/consume content and not post their own?
Do you have any source for that?