In a world that has seen its fair share of calamities, social media platforms like Twitter have traditionally played a pivotal role in providing real-time information, diverse perspectives, and a sense of immediacy during crises. However, the landscape of social networks is undergoing a transformation, and it’s worth considering the trajectory of Meta’s Threads app against this backdrop.
I.
For over a decade, when major global events unfolded, millions of people flocked to Twitter. It became a hub for first-person accounts, credible journalists sharing news and context, and a wide array of commentary, making it a go-to platform for comprehending the state of the world at any given moment.
Admittedly, Twitter was not without its flaws. It sometimes amplified misinformation, provided a platform for ideologues and opportunists, and contributed to the polarization of public discourse. Yet, for news enthusiasts, Twitter remained an indispensable source of real-time information, bringing together expertise on the day’s most significant events and disseminating it widely. It occupied a niche that none of its competitors could successfully replicate.
Fast forward to the present day, and Twitter, as we once knew it, has evolved into something entirely different. In its place stands “X,” which hovers in a precarious space between its former identity as an interest-based network and owner Elon Musk’s vision of a payments processor, job board, and all-encompassing app. After years of hesitancy, Twitter eventually invested in trust and safety mechanisms crucial for maintaining a certain level of information quality during crises. However, at X, Musk has steadily removed most of the trust and safety staff and criticized content moderation in general.
Over the weekend, Musk’s approach to platform integrity faced its most substantial challenge to date, and those relying on the app for real-time news found themselves in for a rude awakening.
In an article titled “The Israel-Hamas War Is Drowning X in Disinformation” by David Gilbert in Wired, the app was reported to be inundated with “old videos, fake photos, and video game footage at a level researchers have never seen.” At a time when open-source intelligence researchers typically rely on the platform for firsthand accounts of attacks, they instead had to sift through an unprecedented volume of false information.
Gilbert reported:
“Rather than being shown verified and fact-checked information, X users were presented with video game footage passed off as footage of a Hamas attack and images of firework celebrations in Algeria presented as Israeli strikes on Hamas. There were faked pictures of soccer superstar Ronaldo holding the Palestinian flag, while a three-year-old video from the Syrian civil war was repurposed to look like it was taken this weekend. […] Many of these videos and images garnered hundreds of thousands of views and engagements. While some later featured a note from X’s beleaguered community fact-checking system, many more remained untouched.”
Musk, for his part, cautioned users against trusting mainstream journalists on the subject and instead promoted two accounts known for spreading misinformation. (In May, both accounts promoted a false story about an explosion near the White House, briefly causing stock prices to plummet, as reported by The Washington Post.)
The exodus of moderators and Musk’s promotion of Community Notes have failed to counter misinformation
Amid the exodus of full-time and contract moderators at X, Musk has actively endorsed Community Notes, the crowd-sourced fact-checking tool previously known as Birdwatch. However, recent events have demonstrated that Community Notes cannot keep pace with the volume of misinformation propagated by the platform’s verified accounts.
On Threads, Alex Stamos from the Stanford Internet Observatory found several verified accounts sharing a video that falsely depicted violence in Israel when it was actually footage of a football championship celebration in Algeria from 2020.
“Sadly, the destruction of the teams Twitter put in place to fight organized manipulation makes it harder for individuals to speak to a global audience as their message gets buried by troll farms, state propaganda organs, and grifters,” Stamos remarked.
On Monday evening, searching for “If Russia did this in Kiev” revealed that seven out of the top 10 posts sharing this video, all with the same message, lacked Community Notes. Six of these top posts were from verified accounts, and they would be paid based on the impressions their videos received.
II.
Over the weekend, users expressed their astonishment at how X had deteriorated as a real-time news source. However, Musk has systematically dismantled the safeguards that once made Twitter, at the very least, a relatively reliable news source for months.
He dismantled the old verification system, replacing a hand-picked group of journalists with verified identities with a mix of culture warriors who pay $8 a month to rise to the top of responses. Musk began compensating these culture warriors based on the views they garnered. He blocked and threatened reporters, sued activists, imposed exorbitant fees for access to the platform’s API, and removed headlines from article previews. Moreover, he promoted the accounts of conspiracy theorists and right-wing extremists.
This system seems designed to sow chaos in the information environment, and it appears to be succeeding.
III.
Each individual reaches their breaking point at a different time. Many people had reached theirs weeks or months earlier. Nonetheless, based on the discussions on Bluesky and Threads over the weekend, it became evident that X’s diminished utility as a real-time news source during crises triggered a fresh reconsideration among former loyal users.
This phenomenon can be understood as what Ezra Klein has described as an “exodus shock” from X and from Musk. Klein wrote in July, “He worsens the product, insults a substantial part of the audience, or engages in something deeply offensive to core users, and this leads to a demand for an alternative, creating explosions in demand.”
Threads, in particular, appears to have attracted a surge in new users. Many journalists posted popular threads introducing themselves to the community. The brands that previously dominated the ranked feed seemed to fade away. While Threads captured only a fraction of the conversations once found on Twitter, it served as a decent platform for understanding the significant events of the weekend, including Hamas’ attacks, Israel’s retaliatory pledges, and charged discussions about what should happen next.
Interestingly, Threads has become more lively in the past week as users have become more vocal in their complaints. On some days, nearly half the posts in the feed are feature requests. Users clamor for hashtags, an improved search function, and a page displaying trending topics (which, according to TechCrunch, is coming soon).
While these requests may be somewhat irksome to the Threads team, considering that the app was launched only three months ago, they are indicative of the app’s potential. Notably, Twitter was once flooded with user feature requests, and complaining about the app’s shortcomings became a cherished pastime.
One notable aspect is that Threads users have not complained about misinformation. While Threads may be smaller than X, potentially making it a less attractive target for trolls, it’s also likely that Meta’s investments in trust and safety are producing results. Offering free verification to journalists, displaying headlines on article links, and dismantling networks of state-backed troll farms have enhanced the reading experience significantly.
Amid the user complaints about missing features, real conversations about the tragic events in Israel were taking place. While Threads may not encompass every nuance of the discussion, it at least reflects the basic shape of the conversation. For an emerging interest-based network, this is a positive indicator of long-term potential.
IV.
At X, the exodus shocks are expected to continue. Mastodon and Bluesky offer alternative platforms, though both are designed for slow growth and even slower feature development.
This leaves Threads with a substantial opportunity. It also places the Threads team at a crossroads.
One path is to listen to the most vocal users. Provide them with trending topics, hashtags, and improved search features. Add lists to help users monitor news from reliable sources. Develop functionality akin to Tweetdeck or even a standalone desktop app for pro users to monitor topics in real time.
The other path is to further align with “TikTok, but for text.” Shift the focus away from news and towards whatever drives user engagement. Concentrate on enhancing the ranked feed, incorporating Reels, introducing more celebrity content, and creating innovative creative tools. Cater to real-life friends and provide them with messaging features.
Public statements from Meta suggest a stronger inclination toward the second path. Threads’ head, Adam Mosseri, has downplayed the role of news in the app, though not as harshly as some critics have suggested. Meta has gradually distanced itself from the news business after years of industry promises. Publishers are currently pressing the company in various countries to pay for allowing users to post links, giving Meta more reasons to not aggressively court journalists.
However, the vision for Threads has been somewhat generic to date – “an open, friendly place for public conversations, particularly focused on creators,” as Mosseri explained at its launch in July. The idea appeared to replicate Instagram in text, with a younger generation of Gen Z users populating the feed with their Amazon hauls, makeup tutorials, and life hacks. Critics who dismissed the app as an empty suburban shopping mall were alluding to this aspect.
Despite the risks of emphasizing real-time news on Threads, it offers a unique advantage: giving the app a lasting, defensible purpose. One of the challenges in consumer app development is offering reasons for users to return daily. “See what’s happening in the world” happens to be a compelling reason. Regardless of the criticisms regarding the features users are clamoring for, these features are intended to enhance Threads and make it more engaging than it is presently.
Perhaps Threads can grow to a billion users while keeping news at a moderate distance. However, it remains unclear what else could drive growth for Meta in the same way that embracing news could.
Ultimately, users have the power to define the purpose of an app. They shape it with hashtags, retweets, and threads to create the product they desire. This past weekend, it seems that many people redefined the purpose of Threads. The question now is whether Meta will heed their voices.