I’m not surprised because Meta said they were doing just that. Anyone who had an account on Instagram automatically has an account reserved for them on Threads. I don’t see anything nefarious about it.
This is stupid. If you “follow” someone who is on Instagram but isn’t on Threads, it automatically follows them when/if they sign up for Threads. It even tells you this on the page.
How does it know you exist? Because it suggests you follow everyone you are already following on Instagram. It is using your Instagram account, there is no standalone Threads account. This isn’t rocket science.
When they say the numbers, they are talking about the number of Instagram users that have also signed up for Threads. For a while it when put a badge on your Instagram profile with what sign up number you were.
It’s not stupid, you shouldn’t be able to discover users in one service from another unless those user have explicitly opted in. It’s not a technical issue, it’s a principals issue.
In this case, you create a Threads account and you should be able to discover everyone else who has also made a Threads account (cos that’s the point), but you shouldn’t be able to see Instagram only users unless they have explicitly said that’s ok.
This is probably all ‘explained’ in the T&C’s, buts that’s getting into a whole other thing
There is nothing to see except for account names you are already following, in a specific onboarding screen that tells you that it is doing that. You cannot discover people who haven’t created a Threads profile. This is like being upset that your Facebook friends show up in Facebook Messenger, and far less intrusive than say, LinkedIn invites.
Actually it’s more like being upset that Facebook friends show up in WhatsApp.
The user in the link is upset because their IG profile is now visible in a different service and they did not explicitly consent to this.
And of course there is such a thing as a Threads account, you even refer to it in your second paragraph. Just because they share a common IDP doesn’t mean they aren’t a distinct service. It’s effectively single sign on without the appropriate privacy protections.
It’s cool that you’re into the whole thing, but other people aren’t and they have a right to be pissed off. GDPR and the like weren’t created for no reason.
No, it’s like being upset that your Facebook friends show up in Facebook Messenger.
WhatsApp is a standalone and separate product. “Threads, an Instagram app” is not.
Their IG profile is not visible in threads. Their username is visible to people who already follow them.
It’s not a matter of being into the whole thing, it’s a matter of people with an axe to grind being intentionally misleading about what is actually happening, and others being ignorant because they won’t bother to double check (which is reasonable, but they could at least admit their ignorance). Accurate statements are much more powerful.
Please, explain how GDPR applies. Try to be specific.
Okay, clearly you’re just here to to be contrary or whatever. Maybe you don’t like that people have different opinions than you. Maybe you’re a Zuck fanboy and can’t hack being on the wrong side of the fence. Maybe you’re part of some FaceBook/Meta conspiracy to brigade.
If you’re so smart and confident that you’re correct, why don’t you show me the bit where GDPR doesn’t apply? Burden of proof on the accuser and all that.
Here is a link to a search, where the first page of results is showing that when Facebook bought WhatsApp this exact same issue popped up - what was once two distinct services suddenly started sharing data, despite user dissent. We’ve seen this before, and people are pissed off just like before.
I hope you step on some Lego in a dark room. You could use that to post to your Threads account! 🤙
I don’t think that’s true. Example: a band I love has a Instagram at remembersportsband if I search threads for that name nothing comes up so I cannot follow them because they have not joined threads
They may have bulk imported a collection of accounts from Instagram into Threads to "kickstart" the site. And not every account was part of the collection.
This is simply not true. Meta is not duplicating accounts into Threads. Your Threads and Instagram account are the exact same account. You delete one, you delete the other. There is no way to create a Threads account without first creating an Instagram account. And Threads is an opt-in application so you won’t have it enabled for your IG account unless you sign up for it.
No, it’s just that users don’t like systems where you have to opt out by default. Like you used to have to opt out of shitty marketing emails after a purchase, but then we changed that to opt in and everyone is happier.
There’s plenty of things to hate Meta for, but this is inaccurate.
You log into Threads with your Instagram account. There’s no “shadow account”, you’re logging into a second service with the same account and credentials.
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.
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?
Super shitty response to the question you still haven’t given an answer to, after I reiterated again what my understanding of the “so obvious” point was.
newsie.social
Hot