Comment by bakugo
11 hours ago
Agreed. The fact that their Threads account[0] is still active (remember that site? yeah, me neither, I had forgotten it existed until I saw it linked on eff.org's socials page) makes it clear that the opening statement about "the numbers not working out" is deceptive.
You have to scroll down a bit further to find their real reason for preferring those sites:
> people of color, queer folks, activists, and organizers use Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook every day
You’re a little behind the times, mate.
Threads has more daily active users than X and is growing quickly vs. the latter’s cratering usage rates. Demographics trend younger, too.
DAU for Threads is misleading, Meta seems to count impressions in Instagram where Threads sections sometimes show up. I personally know no one who uses Threads.
> I personally know no one who uses Threads
Real ‘I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon’ energy here.
1 reply →
> I personally know no one who uses Threads.
I don’t know literally anyone using twitter and yet obviously people do.
Perhaps what the individuals we know are doing are in fact reflective of not very much.
I still see links to X quite often. I don’t think I have ever seen a link to Threads.
I've also never seen a link to Facebook or Instagram but I wouldn't deny they're extremely popular. (last time I saw a link to Facebook was probably when Carmack was blogging there)
Sorry but no. I don't care what inflated numbers Meta brags about after redirecting random people from Instagram and counting that as an "active user", Threads is so utterly irrelevant that I literally forget it exists for months at a time because nobody talks about it.
Even here on HN, searching for links to threads.com in comments from the past year yields a mere 53 results. For comparison, searching for xcancel.com, an unofficial frontend for x.com that allows logged out users to view replies, yields 795 results.
Threads is extremely ‘normie-coded,’ I don’t think there’s much overlap with HN demographics.
2 replies →
[flagged]
I don’t even see them using that phrase in the linked thread? What’s wrong with it anyway?
I don't see it either, funny how people had a knee jerk reaction without even visiting the thread and validating that the phrase even exists. Maybe it's even further down but without logging in I can't see it.
2 replies →
How is the EFF charter incompatible with saying "Queer folks"?
What are you even saying with this criticism? Do you think queer folks were never going to come up in "Digital rights"?
Remind me again what the Q in LGBTQ stands for?