• Itty53@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “had to be true, I saw it on the news” is an extremely naive take.

        Journalist’s are experts in one thing. It isn’t technology or social media. Go hop on threads, there’s not half the population of the US participating FFS. It’s patently obvious. Moreover it isn’t illegal. Why wouldn’t they misreport?

          • Itty53@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Being followed by an idiot != Signing up an account

            I can create a billion accounts on my social media instance. Should that matter? No? So why does it matter that Meta did?

    • ragrum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that’s true. You can sign up using your Instagram account, but I don’t think it happens automatically. Instagram has 1.4B active users for reference.

      • Pat@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It creates shadow placeholder profiles. You need to “sign up” but it’s more like activating your threads profile rather than making a new account since it uses the same account database as Instagram. When I joined, it let me follow all of the people I follow on Instagram, even though 95% of them didn’t have a threads account. Instead it put them in a pending list, automatically following them once they sign into the app and activate their profile for the first time.

        • Itty53@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          And the thing is they are reporting the number of shadow accounts they create. If I were a meta investor I would be looking for a class action right about now.

          • atocci@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think they are because if they were the number of accounts they report would be 1.4 billion and not 100 million.

            • lozunn@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You should remember that there’s a lot of numbers between 0 and 1.4 billion - say, 100 million.

              Why would they not pad their numbers if they cannot meaningfully be held accountable?
              If padding with X users is projected to generate the most profit, then they are going to do just that.

    • small44@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it’s automatic shouldn’t the number of user be the same as the number of Instagram user?

      • VerifiablyMrWonka@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        When you login initially it offers to follow all your Instagram follows. Even if they’ve never logged in. Its creating shadow accounts for all of them.

        When they login initially they find they already have a bunch of followers.

        So it’s not all of Instagram. It’s just all the people who’ve tried it + all the people they tried to follow.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d love a citation for that.

          If it only took a single one of your followers signing up for Threads to make a “shadow account” for you, I’d imagine the number of accounts would basically be the same as the number of Instagram accounts.

          • binaryphile@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That really doesn’t need to be known, we could tell just from average daily active user counts. If those weren’t provided, that’s a big red flag on the rest of their numbers because there’s no reason not to include those numbers. Active users is the most accurate measure. They might reasonably choose to hype the signups number, but if everyone wants to know actives and it’s not provided, that’s Meta choosing to hide the information. Not a confident move.

          • PabloDiscobar@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s simply a database. Your account is in the database and the threads account is an attribute of it marked as “activated” or “not activated”. After that it’s just a matter of counting the activated accounts.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sure, but they’re not reporting the number of Instagram accounts. They’re reporting the number of, to borrow your term, ‘activated’ Threads accounts, which only happens when the user makes active and intentional steps to download the Threads app and sign into it.

              I don’t think it’s that wild to call that “signing up for Threads” and reporting it as such.