Meta's risky gamble on Threads, and why it just might work
In it's race for perfect timing, Meta had to sacrifice smooth edges in the name of something much more valuable. And that might well be Twitter's downfall.
What could have been another typical Wednesday night saw the internet buzzing with the latest news. It was the birth of Threads, the younger sibling to Facebook and Instagram, Meta’s latest addition to its ever-growing portfolio of social platforms. The goal was clear: overthrow Twitter.
First off, can we all agree that a Twitter substitute is long overdue? Eight months of disastrous decisions by Elon Musk (with the company value dropping to a third of the price it was acquired for) were enough to drive away a considerable amount of users and advertisers alike.
Amidst Twitter’s downfall, a long queue of substitute candidates emerged: Mastodon, Post, Substack Notes, and Bluesky, just to name a few. So far, none of them seemed to gain the momentum necessary to tickle Musk.
Enter Threads: in less than four days, the network garnered over 100 million subscribers, becoming the the “fastest-growing app in history.”
The race
The launch had perfect timing. A couple of days prior, all the internet could talk about was the most controversial change to Twitter yet: a daily read limit. While all social media platforms are striving to glue users’ eyeballs to the screen, Musk decided to do the exact opposite. And people were not happy about it.
Amidst the resulting chaos and complaints, Mark Zuckerberg saw an opportunity. And he seized it.
It seems very plausible, if not obvious, that the folks at Meta hurried to launch Threads in time to benefit from the wave of outrage. I can even picture the developers, surrounded by empty cans of energy drinks, frantically coding through the night.
The result is… not their best work. The app that arrived to us last Wednesday is a beta version, and it shows. Meta made its bet: it gambled on releasing a flawed and incomplete version of the app, lacking in core features, to seize the timing. And, as I see it, that is a heck of a winning bet.
Threads — so far — is kind of a crappy app
I will get down to talking about why I think the bet was a good one, but first, let me unleash my inner cranky old woman and grumble about all the issues with Threads.
Some users have complained about the lack of features such as DMs and surveys. To me, this seems less like a flaw and more like a choice to maintain the app as minimalistic as possible (which is surprising, considering it’s fathered by the same folks as that behemoth of a platform, Facebook).
I take much more issue with another issue that I also believe was intentional — but a very ill choice, at that. In Threads, the user has very limited power over the content served to him. So far, there are no hashtags. No way of searching for specific topics. No chronological feed with only the accounts you follow. In other words, it lacks features that are the bread-and-butter of Twitter.
The proposition here is that the Threads algorithm would feed each user with content specifically picked out for them. Currently, the only way to see new posts (threads?) is in a main timeline generated by the algorithm. The feeling this provides is akin to being in a huge room where everyone is shouting at once. It’s exhausting.
This seems to me like Threads’ biggest weakness. First of all, the algorithm really isn’t that good, at least for now. Secondly, the lack of hashtags and chronological timelines don’t allow Threads to be used for real-time updates, such as sports matches or breaking news, one of the most unique uses of Twitter.
But mostly, users like to have at least the illusion of choice when it comes to online content. Stripping users of almost all autonomy on this behalf was a bold choice, and has not gone well. No wonder Meta execs have already announced a chronological, followed-only feed is in the making.
Fewer features, more people
Even with all its flaws, Threads has managed to take the lead in the race to become the new Twitter, surpassing the likes of Bluesky and Substack Notes. That’s because Meta prioritized one of the most crucial elements for launching a successful social platform: people.
Threads’ record-breaking sign-up speed was not due to the quality of the app, but a combination of well-planned strategies and the huge number of users on Instagram. The sign-up process was swift and easy: a couple of taps allowed users to import usernames, profile pictures, and bios straight from Instagram, and even gave them the option to automatically follow the same accounts as they do there, sparing new users the tedious process of searching or picking accounts to follow on yet another social media platform.
No one cares to go to an empty party, and Zuckerberg knows it. We engage in social media mostly because we are social beings. We desire to interact, to see and be seen, and the more people are joining a platform, the more our FOMO pushes us to believe that we can’t be left out. And that’s how you end up with 100 million users in 4 days: signing-up was both easy and trendy.
To me, that was Meta’s winning bet. Features can be added later on, bugs can be fixed, but you can’t rewind the clock to get back that perfect timing.
I also have a feeling that, so far, they have also been able to create an aura of optimism around Threads, as if it were the “less toxic version” of Twitter (which is not hard, given that since Musk’s reign has started it has become a land of trolls, bots and hate speech galore).
And perhaps one of the biggest indications of Threads’ initial success is Musk’s own reaction, which included a series of tantrums via tweets and a cease-and-desist letter sent by his attorney to Meta.
Yet, the question remains: will Threads live up to its “Twitter killer” hype? For now, it’s hard to say. It’s surely one of the strongest contenders so far, but we should remember that having tons of subscribers doesn’t guarantee regular users after the excitement fades away (don’t get me started on the Google+ fiasco).
I believe that if the missing features are addressed soon, and if Threads indeed proves to be a viable alternative to Twitter, it has a very good shot. Otherwise, users will just lose interest and flock to the next hot thing. Let’s stay tuned for the next chapters.
