Evan Urquhart 🏳️⚧️Do people actually believe the 70 million Threads users number?
Iisn't this the company known to have lied about video's popularity. casually destroying an entire industry?
Alan Brand 
@e_urq
Given the very large number of people in the world that I have zero interest in having any contact with, yeah it might be right. 😉
Given the very large number of people in the world that I have zero interest in having any contact with, yeah it might be right. 😉
deilann v -0.2.1. 
@e_urq i believe it as the number of people who signed up for Threads with their existing Instagram account, which does not necessarily correlate 1:1 human:account
user is a stretch beyond that even - does having signed into a service a user make?
calamur@e_urq I believe it. But it is sign ups and sign up is easy.
Two weeks from now it would be interesting to see how many active users and time spent.
I suspect time spent is going to be at the expense of insta. And not twitter.
one will still go back to twitter for the slugfest
Two weeks from now it would be interesting to see how many active users and time spent.
I suspect time spent is going to be at the expense of insta. And not twitter.
one will still go back to twitter for the slugfest
Rob Fahrni@e_urq I believe that number equates to the number of Instagram account holders who have kicked the tires at least. I did, tried it, wasn’t satisfied with how it worked, and deleted the app from my phone. I’m a user but not an active user.
@fahrni Right, I've heard this criticism, and I'm sure it's true. However, I also think people are believing Meta's number is real at all way too easily. They are known to have lied about a very similar thing before, and as a consequence they shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt, particularly when a number is unusually high and greatly helps their image.
David Radcliffe@e_urq The estimate seems low to me. About a sixth of my Instagram followers are also following me on Threads.
@e_urq But I take your point that they can't be trusted. I'd like to see an independent estimate.
@davidradcliffe Right, I'm not arguing against the number itself, just against their being allowed to behave as if they're a trustworthy source of this exact kind of information.
Jérôme@e_urq yes I believe the number. And blatant lying would have consequences for a public company with the regulators
@jerome Oh, is there a different legal reason these numbers have to be correct that their previous false numbers didn't?
@e_urq you’re the one accusing them of lying and creating a conspiracy theory. You’d need to bring the burden of proof.
Mark R. Stoneman@jerome Actually, FB's/Meta's track record isn't great. In any case, their potential advertisers will need proof, meaning in such cases the burden of proof will be on Zuckerberg & Co. The rest of us should expect something more substantial than empty claims, too, since we are being asked to commit our time on -- and personal information to -- the new service, and this service is owned by a company that has shown itself to be a bad actor in the past. @e_urq
@jerome No, you've misunderstood.
I'm saying that their past lies should have consequences, such as not giving them the benefit of the doubt when they make similar types claims without providing evidence.
You know, punishing known liars by being skeptical. I don'tclaim to know the real numbers, just saying known past lies should have consequences to credibility.
nhan#Instagram has 2.35 billion users, and 70 million of #Threads is just 3% of them. Does that sound too unreasonable to you so that you have to doubt that number?
Do you think it's reasonable for conspiracy theorists to go around telling people to doubt everything their government says because the government has a proven track record of breaking social contract multiple times, especially when there isn't any evidence?
Evan Urquhart 🏳️⚧️ (@[email protected])
@[email protected] I have an instagra account, but I haven't signed into it since Threads launched. And, it hasn't been active for a month yet. How many daily active users does instagram have? What percentage of those are they saying have installed this? My point is primarily that known liars ought to lose the benefit of the doubt. They broke the social contract once, there should be consequences in the form of always doubting their numbers going forward and mentioning the lying they did previously.
@nhan @jerome Meta is known to have lied in a similar situation. Their worldwide daily active users are around 500 million. Europe doesn't have Threads. Still, let's be charitable and say it was in the neighborhood of 10 percent of their users on the first day.
That seems possible, but not so obviously reasonable that a company known to have inflated their numbers in the past should be trusted without question.
@e_urq @jerome DAU of Facebook is 2 bil, DAU of Insta is 500 mil. Sign up is as easy as a few clicks. The #Threads launch has been hyped up by the media a week before that. Plus the recent debacle at Twitter. In fact, they rushed it out of the door to capitalize on it. Many, many of the big celebrities, YouTubers, News Orgs are there in the first day.
Subtract the MAU of Insta in Europe, the number I gave you before jump to 3.3%. Evidence of hype: https://mastodon.social/@YupYupp/110680447590078159
Still unreasonable?
@nhan @jerome I don't think I said it was ureasonable. It's not so obviously reasonable it should be accepted unquestioningly from a company who lied in similar circumstances. I've asked if they've provided evidence, and no one claims they have. Media covering the number should mention past lies.
This is about past lies having consequences, not my belief or disbelief in the number. It may be true- I think they've lost the right to have numbers they're hyping believed w/o proof.
Cassandrich@e_urq Very essy to sign up, as I did because I have an insta account. I suspect they still include me, though, even though I deactivated that account with 15 minutes. Regardless, people are fickle, and what happens will take some time to see.
Diamond Joy@e_urq Not for a second unless you count the number of bots set up w/ intent to destroy. What do 70 million people all do in one day except breathe and eat?
mcc@e_urq You make a good point but also I'm just thinking about how many people I've seen "Yeah, made a threads profile so I can reserve the username".
I predict the gap between that 70 million signups at launch and weekly active users in month two will be so extreme they will never share that second stat with us.
@mcc Yeah, I'm not invested in the number itself, just in people giving credibility to the statements of an actor who is known not to have any.
In my preferred journalistic environment, every article mentioning 70m would say "according to Meta, who were previoualy exposed for having inflated the number of viewers for videos on Facebook in 20xx".
Bc I think that sort of abuse of trust should stick to people.
Christopher Snowhill
Woozle Hypertwin@e_urq Certainly not going to consider believing it until they clearly define "user".
I'd take it with 70 million grains of salt.
Mike Hicks@e_urq It should be at least semi-verifiable by opening a new account and then checking what number gets put on the "@"-symbol badge on the associated Instagram account. Zuckerberg got number 1 and everyone else goes up from there.
A possibility more important metric is how many posts have actually been made, and the last number I saw yesterday was something like 180 million -- if most accounts have only made zero, one, or two posts and stay that way, it will be difficult to call it a success
Aaron Grebner@e_urq probably. Given that they are just logging in via instagram.
Bardnet
Chris Marquardt (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image 70 mio wundert übrigens gar nicht, wenn die da einen dermaßen geschickten Funnel bauen und alle, die Instagram öffnen, diesen Dialog bekommen. #threads #onebutton #install