164
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
164 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37702 readers
55 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Nah its more like having Telegram prompt me "Jay is on Telegram, say Hi to Jay" when he hasn't created an account or joined. Currently Telegram only shows those who actively joined. This is the point of the post.
Threads only shows users who have signed in to Threads. If you mention an Instagram user in a Threads post that has not signed in to Threads prior, the mention is removed because it’s not a valid handle.
I urge you to read through the link in the original post to the Mastodon user who originally made this claim, where you’ll find plenty of people more eloquent than me explaining why this is inaccurate.
I followed the link as you suggested. I found a slight correction on the way it works.
A "shadow account" was some layperson's attempt to describe what happened. That seemed clear to me immediately. It also seems that Threads and Instagram are much more intertwined than users expect.
I understand why this would upset people! I was furious when I tapped one screen wrong and connected my Facebook and Instagram accounts. It can't be undone. It changed a profile picture. I didn't quite become angry enough to delete both, but I stopped using them.
Ok, thanks for the info
Google is creating SHADOW Google calendar accounts for you if you use Gmail! Look! I sent my friend a calendar invite but they've never even logged into Google calendar!
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.
It seems we agree to disagree. The point I make is pretty clear, and it doesn't make sense if you repeating your arvuments over and over again.
But the point you’re making isn’t clear which is why I asked if you could clarify - what is the point you’re making?
@0x815@feddit.de seems pretty clear to me buddy. I'm not sure what you aren't getting.
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?
Yeah, they aren’t creating shadow accounts. For a while if you logged into threads you even got a badge on your Instagram page with your sign up number on Threads.
Oh god, I tire of you. Either trolling or just really dense. I'm going to block you and move on. I suggest you do the same. Jesus christ.
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.
Whatever you want dude, happy to block you.
Your original point is clear, but it's just not true. Meta isn't manufacturing numbers. They just make it super easy to sign up in Threads by enabling everyone that has an Instagram account to log into it. There is really no need to create shadow accounts since you can't create a Thread account without creating an Instragram account first.
Do you have any source for that?
I get what you're saying. From my point of view we're just playing on the semantics of "service" and "app" here. I had indeed the same problem with Google and Hangouts.
I too understand where you’re coming from, but I think it’s an important distinction, not semantics.
If Meta was simply creating a duplicitous profile for every Instagram user, that would be pretty predatory and misleading.
However, if that were the case, they would also be bragging about having 2+ billion Threads “users”.
It also implies that users could interact with these “shadow accounts” even if that person never used Threads, which is not the case.
As it currently works, if you try to mention a user who is on Instagram but isn’t on Threads, nothing happens, the mention is stripped because it’s not a valid handle.