Should you start using Threads, or are you jumping on the wrong bandwagon?

The initial pomp and pageantry for Meta’s much-anticipated Threads app did not disappoint. Make no mistake, for all the talk about social media fatigue and the notion of TikTok siphoning all the air away from its competitors, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg dominated headlines and intrigued millions of users with the introduction of Threads to the world. Maybe the public loves a good comeback story. Maybe it has something to do with Threads potentially rivalling Elon Musk’s much-criticised Twitter. Regardless, Mr Zuckerberg managed to create a thunderclap on July 6 when Threads became available to the public. According to Mr Zuckerberg, more than 5 million people signed up for Threads in the platform’s first hour of existence. Many of those users, however, are still trying to figure out exactly how and why to use it, and just how much they’ll want it in their lives. As Social Media Editor for The National , this sort of announcement affects me on several levels. First of all, nobody wants to be late to the party, so to speak. We have to see how we can use the platform to enrich our reader experiences. Second, in the grand scheme of things, we have to look at the overall landscape of social media, and what this means for those of us who live and work in it. As the dust settles with the initial launch, here’s a look at some of the first takeaways: Perhaps it’s no surprise that Meta, the parent-company of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, made use of the large, installed base of Instagram users when launching Threads . Upon sign-up, you have the option of following all the people you already follow on Instagram, even if they’re not on Threads yet. Of course, that’s all contingent on your friends also joining Threads. But once they do, you’ll be able to see their updates, photos, and links as they share them. Either way, that means Threads has a huge head start on generating a userbase. Threads has widely been seen as a direct competitor to Twitter, but in that same breath, within the app there’s the option to share posts to Twitter, along with the option to share your posts as an InstaStory, or Instagram grid post. Of course, there’s also the options widely available on other social media apps to copy links to your posts, or share those links via email or text message. The “share to Twitter” option, however, is the most tantalising feature, especially given the similarities and inevitable rivalry between the two platforms. I don’t think it’s a stretch to speculate that this is Mr Zuckerberg’s way of bringing disillusioned Twitter users into his new social media world. Maybe the much-discussed cage match between him and Elon Musk won’t take place, but rather, the real match is happening right now, Zuckerberg’s Threads going toe to toe with social media giant Twitter. If you like swiping left on Instagram to see photo carousels shared by family, friends and celebrities, then you’ll be quite at home on Threads. Unlike Twitter, which only gives the ability to post four photos that can be clicked individually, Threads makes use of the popular Instagram feature that allows you to glide through photos. Hashtags, the popular way of following and contributing to various topics on Twitter and Instagram, don’t seem to be part of the Threads experience. Sure, you can try to use them, but they’re not clickable, and as of right now, don’t serve a purpose on Threads. As of the writing of this article, users have the ability to post approximately 500 character messages in Threads. Of course, there’s an easily accessible “add to thread” option for you to continue your post, which is widely encouraged – hence the name of the platform, Threads (in the context of social media, a series of posts on a generic theme). Only a fool would disregard initial success and sign-ups for Threads. But there is a major factor that needs to be taken into consideration before Mark Zuckerberg takes a victory lap. Exclusivity and, to some extent, obscurity tends to fuel the excitement behind successful social media apps. It’s easy to forget, but part of what made Facebook so appealing so many years ago was the fact that it was only available to university students. Although Twitter wasn’t exclusive when it first launched, its quirkiness combined with a niche userbase helped to fuel its growth into the mainstream. And TikTok started as a lip-syncing app called Musical.ly. Why am I taking you on this journey down social media memory lane? Because these apps came out of nowhere. There wasn’t a “much anticipated launch” or a media fuelled build-up. Having a successful launch is no guarantee for sustained success. Remember Google+ (Google Plus)? It’s easy to forget, but when it launched in 2011, it was widely seen as a huge threat to Facebook’s dominance. Surely a company with an installed base like Google would be able to get people to signup to Google+, and the company did just that when the social media service was launched, but then what happened? Not much. Despite an estimated 200 million users, the world didn’t see the need for a different version of Facebook. That’s the question you might want to ask right now, albeit tweaked slightly. Does the world need a different vision of Twitter? It already has one to some degree, called Mastodon. It, too, saw a spike in users once Elon Musk took over Twitter, but usage of the app fell off a cliff shortly thereafter. Am I rooting against Threads? No, not at all. My job exists because of the success of these social media apps. I’m fascinated by the efforts to increase human interactions and engage curiosities all over the world. However, I’ve been down this road before, and it’s too early to declare Threads victorious. While we all experiment with and enjoy using Threads, I can’t help but wonder if the next big thing in social media is something that’s completely off everyone’s radar. ⇒ Follow The National on Threads