Imagine waking up each day, not to the buzz of an alarm clock, but to the irresistible pull of an app that promises the freshest conversations about the world around you. Threads from Meta is aiming to become that essential morning ritual, drawing users in with its blend of real-time chats and personalized feeds. But is it truly the social media savior everyone's been waiting for, or just another platform playing catch-up in a crowded field? Let's dive into the details from a recent chat with Threads' head, Connor Hayes, and explore what makes this app tick – and what sparks debate along the way.
This piece is pulled from Sources by Alex Heath (https://sources.news/), a weekly newsletter dissecting AI and tech trends, shared exclusively with The Verge subscribers.
Without a doubt, Threads has powered through an impressive debut year. It clinched the spot as Apple's second-most-downloaded iOS app for 2023, right behind the AI sensation ChatGPT. Today, it boasts 400 million monthly active users and a staggering 150 million checking in daily – numbers that speak to its rapid rise.
As Hayes puts it, 'There are consumers who are ravenous to consume the content.' It's a testament to how Threads taps into our innate hunger for engaging, bite-sized discussions.
Much of this momentum stems from Meta's powerhouse platforms. 'We do a lot of work in Instagram and Facebook to show off what’s going on in Threads,' Hayes shared in our interview. The strategy is clever: they tease tailored Threads posts within your Instagram and Facebook feeds to lure you in, encourage the download, and gradually help you build the habit of opening the app without those external prompts. 'We do a bunch of work to get people off of being dependent on those promotions and wake up in the morning and just want to open the app,' he elaborated. Think of it like training a pet – start with treats (nudges), then reward the behavior until it becomes second nature.
Hayes, who steered Threads' initial launch and took the helm in September, has been laser-focused on defining its unique vibe. In our talk, he painted Threads as 'the place on the internet to talk about what’s going on in the world.' To make that real, the team is zeroing in on niche areas – like sports, entertainment, and news – to attract both creators churning out content and eager users diving into it. It's about creating dedicated spaces where conversations flow naturally, much like how a coffee shop gathers fans of the same hobby.
But here's where it gets controversial... When sizing up the competition, Hayes doesn't just eye Twitter (now X). 'Reddit has a ton of activity that is analogous to what happened on Twitter in the early days,' he noted, pointing to its bustling forums. 'Discord has a bunch of these big group chat-style communities.' He gives X credit for inventing the short-form, real-time convo style, yet stresses that the battle for our attention in live discussions is far from a two-horse race. Is Threads biting off more than it can chew by spreading its focus, or is this strategic inclusivity the key to dominating the space?
And this is the part most people miss: Threads positions itself as a gateway for creators, not a direct moneymaker. No built-in ways to earn directly on the platform yet. Instead, it's pitched as a traffic booster to other sites where the real payouts happen. Take podcasts, for instance – Threads has rolled out a handy feature embedding show and episode links from services like Spotify, allowing users to pin them right to their profiles. Hayes hints at more collaborations with platforms such as Substack and Patreon. But hold on – there's no intention to enable paywalled posts on Threads itself or split ad revenue like YouTube does. For creators, it's all about directing fans elsewhere for the cash. Could this approach empower indie voices, or does it just funnel users to bigger players while Threads skims the top?
Ads are creeping in, but at a snail's pace. Threads is trialing them in select countries, including the US, with a light touch, as Hayes explained. 'We are ramping the ad load up steadily over the course of the next year,' he said, 'but only doing it when we feel like there’s enough value on the consumer side of the app to justify doing that.' It's a thoughtful balance, ensuring ads enhance rather than overwhelm the experience – think subtle suggestions instead of blaring billboards.
Now, for something truly innovative: controlling the algorithm. Threads is piloting 'Dear Algo,' a feature in a few nations where you can tweak what you see – request more or less of a topic, even share your custom prompts for friends to remix. Your feed adjusts for three days based on that input. Picture this: after your favorite team suffers a crushing defeat, you tell the algo to hide NFL updates for a bit, then bounce back when you're ready. Hayes illustrated it perfectly. The magic? Advanced AI, powered by large language models, lets Threads grasp nuances – not just 'basketball,' but 'the 1998 NBA Finals with this player shooting for that team.' Early users get specific: 'show me more football content, but not Patrick Mahomes.' It's empowering for beginners who might feel lost in algorithm black boxes, making personalization feel like a collaborative game.
On the fediverse front – that's the interconnected network of apps like Mastodon – Threads keeps it running, but it's not front and center. Hayes was blunt: it's maintained, not prioritized. 'It’s something that we’re supporting, it’s something that we’re maintaining, but it’s not the thing that we’re talking about that’s gonna help the app break out.' He explained the challenge: 'As someone who has built a zillion consumer products, it’s just really hard to keep these divergent platforms and products consistent on the same protocol over time.' Companies juggle compatibility versus their own innovations. Is Threads' lukewarm stance on federation a smart focus on growth, or a missed opportunity for open-source utopia? The trade-offs are real, and it begs the question: should social media be walled gardens or vast, interconnected meadows?
Threads used to get ridiculed for dredging up ancient posts. No more – it now favors stuff from the past 24 hours, per Hayes. 'If something is four or five days old, even if it’s really good, we probably won’t show that.' Yet, unlike X, which courts journalists aggressively, Threads isn't chasing publishers or reporters. 'We just look at it like any other vertical, which is that there are certain creators who are really good at this and know a lot about it. There are consumers who are ravenous to consume the content.' News isn't suppressed; it's just not a priority vertical right now. This neutrality might appeal to those tired of biased feeds, but what about the role of journalism in shaping public discourse? Does sidelining news make Threads more fun and less polarized, or does it risk creating echo chambers void of informed debate?
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
- Alex Heath
What do you think? Is Threads on track to become your go-to morning app, or do you see it fading like so many others? Does its approach to ads, creators, and even news spark agreement or pushback? Share your thoughts in the comments – I'd love to hear if Hayes' vision resonates or if there's a controversial twist I'm missing!
