In fairness, it’s pretty smart, IMHO: one of the big difficulties in getting a social site started is getting a critical mass of people together to sustain conversation. Facebook already has plenty of Instagram users, so giving them all access to Threads seems like a pretty good way to bootstrap Threads.
That number actually seems pretty low now, considering the number of Instagram accounts is already in the billions. Maybe they didn’t activate all of them to make it seem more believable?
I have only an Instagram account, checked just now with a friend who has instagram, Facebook, and now threads. He cannot find me on threads at all, so either this isn’t done to EVERYONE on Instagram, or these are just baseless rumors being spread around.
Which is a pity because the ideas of having “circles” was actually clever. Or at least I thought so back then. I wonder how modern social media would look like if they all implemented that.
They did this with Facebook accounts to instagram too. My brother has never downloaded instagram yet he’s my top follow suggestion all the time and it just uses his Facebook profile picture automatically
It’s not creating a “shadow account”, it is literally the same account. Threads is just a different frontend for what already existed with Instagram. And Meta would’ve been stupid, if they wouldn’t have use what they already have.
Oh for sure, but it does make me wonder how accurate the sign up reports are.
Does Threads report people who actually sign up and “claim” their “shadow accounts,” or does it count actual accounts and “shadow accounts?” The former is definitely a more accurate count, while the latter is basically numbers padding.
My understanding, it is reporting people who specifically elect to sign up for Threads using their Instagram account. On instagram profiles, they have been showing a badge with their Threads subscriber number that you only get when you elect to join Threads. This increases sequentially.
The highest number on the badge should give a good indication of how many Instagram users at least “claimed” their Threads account.
I think something that a lot of the comments are missing here is the fact that threads, Instagram and Facebook all have been migrated from individual accounts to ‘meta’ accounts. I’m certain that we will see this happen with many platforms unless there is a serious shift in data protection laws. I don’t personally think it’s great that it’s the case but that’s just how it is. The meta platform is quite similar to how google migrated YouTube users to google accounts way back in the day. This monolithic structure ensures that they can keep your user data in a more streamlined database. From a sys admin and a business perspective it makes a lot of sense. From a user who doesn’t care and already uses all of those services perspective it makes a lot of sense. From a privacy conscious user perspective it makes no sense. Then again metas platform is in no way for the user who cares how their data is being handled.
I guess another perspective is talking about interoperability. It kind of feels like they are taking the web3 (I know it’s a loaded term) approach but instead of applying it in a way that allows free development and communication in a way that basically pulls from decentralized/distributed databases you instead get a centralized monolithic model that creates interoperability within their own walled garden.
It’s not really a choice though, is it? They can’t access fb without “choosing” that and for many, Facebook used to be/is the only way some people have to socialize or just contact family members.
Especially as in some countries, fb is The Internet for most people. Without a fb account I have no idea about events in my area and miss out on private sales.
They have something that people need. Not kinda want. NEED. They know this and they’re using that leverage to make people agree to things that they never would otherwise. It may technically be legal, but it’s extremely unethical and nowhere near an unencumbered choice.
Do you get it now? If not, that’s too bad. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
Not only that, there are parts of the world where FB provides the internet for free and its prohibitively expensive for those people to access the internet otherwise. You can’t realistically say those people have a choice.
That’s not even broaching the topic of whether or not we should give people “the choice”. Generally things that are known to be harmful if used in certain ways aren’t allowed to be sold to the general public. We take away “choice” all the time to protect the average idiot, I don’t see how this is any different.
Meanwhile, I got my first ever Facebook ban because someone salty about losing an argument reported me for using a fake name. I was using my real name, which has a Scandinavian letter in it, and had to submit a picture of my fucking passport for fb to unlock my account 🤦
I do find it weird how so many people for both claimed their accounts were suspended or banned for not using a real name, when I never gave them my real name and have kept both of those accounts the entire time without issue. Maybe it’s because I don’t actually use Facebook; but I still use a lot of Google’s shit because there isn’t anything better yet.
It’s about email if you make account using email and email name and your name not match you will be ban. If you use your mobile number you will not be ban because they don’t know your real name you will only get banned if someone report you for using fake name
I had my fake account deactivated for using a made up name a few years ago. I was forced to giving it a real fake name instead of a comedy one. Haven’t used it years now so I don’t even know if it’s still working.
I’d you have to create a threads account, which shares and logins to your Instagram account, for it to be active, but people are being sent advice to follow accounts which haven’t been activated, then this is bad faith behaviour and not misinformation.
not really. If the account never activates on Threads then nothing happens. It’s just a convenience. If they don’t offer this feature then you have to consistently keep checking to see when your friends activate their account and go find them. It’s objectively a worse experience to do it that way
ITT: no one who actually went through the sign-up process. It’s like a 3 step process. Eventually you get brought to a screen that asks if you want to follow all of your current followers on Instagram. You can choose yes or no to all the people you currently follow, or you can individually select who you want to follow in Threads the people you follow on Instagram. If you select anyone that has not yet activated their Threads account it literally tells you that nothing will happen for now, but if and when the user activates the account, you will follow them if they are public or it will request to follow them if they are private.
There’s no magic happening here. There’s no shadow accounts…you use the SAME login for Instagram and Threads. They obviously know when you activate your threads account and it will just show the list of users who have already completed the signup and requested to follow you
Now I understand, thanks for explaining. I think it’s just the logical thing to do, it’s just the screen when someone registers on threads and doesn’t mean it creates a shadow account, it’d be more complicated actually
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it’s related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
In fairness, it’s pretty smart, IMHO: one of the big difficulties in getting a social site started is getting a critical mass of people together to sustain conversation. Facebook already has plenty of Instagram users, so giving them all access to Threads seems like a pretty good way to bootstrap Threads.
removed by mod
They did say “X milions of accounts were ACTIVATED in one day”, not “created”.
That number actually seems pretty low now, considering the number of Instagram accounts is already in the billions. Maybe they didn’t activate all of them to make it seem more believable?
Yeah but the didn’t launch on the EU yet.
Yeah I heard about a user whose boyfriend had friends and sent an invite on the app. The only problem, the boyfriend hadn’t created a threads account.
I have only an Instagram account, checked just now with a friend who has instagram, Facebook, and now threads. He cannot find me on threads at all, so either this isn’t done to EVERYONE on Instagram, or these are just baseless rumors being spread around.
Does anyone remember Google+? When they tried to make everyone with a YouTube account also have a Google+ account.
Spoiler alert: it didn’t go well
Which is a pity because the ideas of having “circles” was actually clever. Or at least I thought so back then. I wonder how modern social media would look like if they all implemented that.
Sadly, it was destined to fail. In Diaspora and in Google+.
The thing is, while people definitely do have different circles, they don’t like to think about these circles in an explicit way.
Facebook has had something like this for a while now, you can set visibility settings on every post, but again almost nobody uses it.
They did this with Facebook accounts to instagram too. My brother has never downloaded instagram yet he’s my top follow suggestion all the time and it just uses his Facebook profile picture automatically
yuck!
Holy shit that’s why they bundled it in with Instagram? So they can inflate the adoption rate?
Ah. The Google+ approach to signing up “users”.
Yeah all that mess with Google+ and all that came out of it was we lost the + operator in Google Search.
Added to my circle!
But you can’t close your threads account without closing your instagram account.
It’s not creating a “shadow account”, it is literally the same account. Threads is just a different frontend for what already existed with Instagram. And Meta would’ve been stupid, if they wouldn’t have use what they already have.
Oh for sure, but it does make me wonder how accurate the sign up reports are.
Does Threads report people who actually sign up and “claim” their “shadow accounts,” or does it count actual accounts and “shadow accounts?” The former is definitely a more accurate count, while the latter is basically numbers padding.
My understanding, it is reporting people who specifically elect to sign up for Threads using their Instagram account. On instagram profiles, they have been showing a badge with their Threads subscriber number that you only get when you elect to join Threads. This increases sequentially.
The highest number on the badge should give a good indication of how many Instagram users at least “claimed” their Threads account.
I think something that a lot of the comments are missing here is the fact that threads, Instagram and Facebook all have been migrated from individual accounts to ‘meta’ accounts. I’m certain that we will see this happen with many platforms unless there is a serious shift in data protection laws. I don’t personally think it’s great that it’s the case but that’s just how it is. The meta platform is quite similar to how google migrated YouTube users to google accounts way back in the day. This monolithic structure ensures that they can keep your user data in a more streamlined database. From a sys admin and a business perspective it makes a lot of sense. From a user who doesn’t care and already uses all of those services perspective it makes a lot of sense. From a privacy conscious user perspective it makes no sense. Then again metas platform is in no way for the user who cares how their data is being handled.
I guess another perspective is talking about interoperability. It kind of feels like they are taking the web3 (I know it’s a loaded term) approach but instead of applying it in a way that allows free development and communication in a way that basically pulls from decentralized/distributed databases you instead get a centralized monolithic model that creates interoperability within their own walled garden.
This is very important. Users choose to give their data over to these companies.
They should have that choice, regardless of the repercussions.
It’s not really a choice though, is it? They can’t access fb without “choosing” that and for many, Facebook used to be/is the only way some people have to socialize or just contact family members.
It’s the student loans of privacy.
Especially as in some countries, fb is The Internet for most people. Without a fb account I have no idea about events in my area and miss out on private sales.
They do have a choice, just like we can choose to use the fediverse instead of the metaverse.
They chose what’s popular, regardless of the consequences. They should be free to do that just as we should be free to do this.
Personally, I think this should be more popular, but I don’t control the world and don’t care to.
Have you ever heard of a little thing called coercion? False choice? Emotional blackmail?
To pretend that it’s a straightforward choice is downright asinine.
Lol, what?
They have something that people need. Not kinda want. NEED. They know this and they’re using that leverage to make people agree to things that they never would otherwise. It may technically be legal, but it’s extremely unethical and nowhere near an unencumbered choice.
Do you get it now? If not, that’s too bad. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
Err… no they don’t.
I think you need to brush up on the definitions of “want” and “need,” lol.
Not only that, there are parts of the world where FB provides the internet for free and its prohibitively expensive for those people to access the internet otherwise. You can’t realistically say those people have a choice.
That’s not even broaching the topic of whether or not we should give people “the choice”. Generally things that are known to be harmful if used in certain ways aren’t allowed to be sold to the general public. We take away “choice” all the time to protect the average idiot, I don’t see how this is any different.
Dude there are people with the name poo poo pee pee on Facebook. I regret ever using my real name with Google and Facebook
Meanwhile, I got my first ever Facebook ban because someone salty about losing an argument reported me for using a fake name. I was using my real name, which has a Scandinavian letter in it, and had to submit a picture of my fucking passport for fb to unlock my account 🤦
I do find it weird how so many people for both claimed their accounts were suspended or banned for not using a real name, when I never gave them my real name and have kept both of those accounts the entire time without issue. Maybe it’s because I don’t actually use Facebook; but I still use a lot of Google’s shit because there isn’t anything better yet.
It’s about email if you make account using email and email name and your name not match you will be ban. If you use your mobile number you will not be ban because they don’t know your real name you will only get banned if someone report you for using fake name
I had my fake account deactivated for using a made up name a few years ago. I was forced to giving it a real fake name instead of a comedy one. Haven’t used it years now so I don’t even know if it’s still working.
i knew accounts were being automatically created and thats why i don’t believe the numbers
Accounts are not automatically being created.
Can we please stop with the misinformation campaign.
Everyone on here is trying to pat each other on the back by being better than Reddit.
So far no one on here acts differently from Reddit, no matter how much you guys like to pretend lol.
“Shadow accounts” lol. It’s literally your instagram account. Threads is built on top of Instagram. None of this is some hidden secret.
I’d you have to create a threads account, which shares and logins to your Instagram account, for it to be active, but people are being sent advice to follow accounts which haven’t been activated, then this is bad faith behaviour and not misinformation.
not really. If the account never activates on Threads then nothing happens. It’s just a convenience. If they don’t offer this feature then you have to consistently keep checking to see when your friends activate their account and go find them. It’s objectively a worse experience to do it that way
Sir, this is Lemmy.
ITT: no one who actually went through the sign-up process. It’s like a 3 step process. Eventually you get brought to a screen that asks if you want to follow all of your current followers on Instagram. You can choose yes or no to all the people you currently follow, or you can individually select who you want to follow in Threads the people you follow on Instagram. If you select anyone that has not yet activated their Threads account it literally tells you that nothing will happen for now, but if and when the user activates the account, you will follow them if they are public or it will request to follow them if they are private.
There’s no magic happening here. There’s no shadow accounts…you use the SAME login for Instagram and Threads. They obviously know when you activate your threads account and it will just show the list of users who have already completed the signup and requested to follow you
Now I understand, thanks for explaining. I think it’s just the logical thing to do, it’s just the screen when someone registers on threads and doesn’t mean it creates a shadow account, it’d be more complicated actually
These people should stop believing so blindly.
We were armchair warriors on Reddit. Now, we are armchair warriors on Lemmy. insert spidermen pointing fingers at each other meme here
don’t see that pluralized everyday, heh