Threads by Meta
We were young once, and optimists. In the Middle East, revolutions bloomed in the fresh soil of social media, and we called it Spring. In Ukraine, a nation snapped free of the marionette’s strings, amplifying their stories online. We called it a Revolution of Dignity. In the U.S., an American presidential candidate aggregated a coalition through direct exchange, unmediated by cable networks and publishing gatekeepers. We used words like “Hope.”
Twitter facilitated it all. Until that unfortunate law of the internet age proved itself again: Virtues evaporate in the heat of the market until only vice remains. If Twitter once held the remarkable position as the world’s public square, under the leadership of Elon Musk it has been revealed to be less Athenian Acropolis and more Times Square circa 1981. Sure, the buskers are performing beautifully. But behind them a dumpster is in flames, racists are chanting on the corner, and someone is most certainly defecating at the bus stop.
It was inevitable that a competitor would smell bird blood. Mark Zuckerberg—who once proclaimed he would only eat meat that he killed himself—seems to want fowl on the menu. Having succeeded in sub-dividing 3 billion people into echo chambers, creating the world’s most effective disinformation platform, and supporting ethnic violence, Zuckerberg’s misery machine has a new offer: Threads, an app purpose-built to starve Twitter of its last remaining faithful.
“Move fast and break things” was Facebook’s original imperative. “Look around and steal whatever’s working” seems to be its latest mandate. As the saying goes, good artists borrow, great artists steal, and internet moguls copy/paste. Starting with its name—lifted from a particularly popular user behavior on Twitter—Threads looks like Twitter, scrolls like Twitter, and generally works like Twitter. It may be more Twitter like than Twitter itself—now called “X.”
But it doesn’t chirp and float like Twitter. Or at least the way Twitter once did. The Threads app itself is elegant. Familiar design, smooth edges, a pleasant experience one can’t really hate. As a child of Instagram, where masses gather to make museums of their lives, perfect lines were to be expected. But the stripped-down feature set doesn’t amount to “less is more” so much as just less. Notifications are confounding. Search is anemic. Direct messages are non-existent, as are hashtags and trending topics.
The naked nature of Threads isn’t a bug. It’s entirely in line with Meta’s philosophy. While surely additional features will emerge that mimic Twitter’s more delightful and serendipitous dynamics, the fundamental purpose of Threads is different, reflected in its design. Twitter began with earnestness and authenticity in search of profitability. Threads starts with profitability and power in search of authenticity.
It’s not searching very hard. A sub-project of Instagram, Threads isn’t here to generate conversation and debate, to inform and delight and infuriate and shape discourse. By the project lead’s own admission, Threads isn’t here for substance.
A natural extension of a highly active user base on Instagram gave it rocket fuel upon launch. Keeping it in orbit will be ad dollars in need of a home—without the risk of their product showing up next to one of Musk’s free-speech misogynists. But will Threads work for the good of users, correcting past errors and bringing any measure of care for health and society? Doubtful. We haven’t the luxury of choosing a platform run by a noble and benevolent visionary—or even by accidental, well-meaning developers like those that stumbled upon Twitter in the mid-aughts. Musk is chaos, Zuckerberg is a bore, and Threads will not bring spring to any revolutions. We’re too jaded for such hopes anyway. Dignity is beyond us.
