Why Threads isn’t the next Twitter
Launched two weeks ago as Meta’s competitor to Twitter, Threads is the fastest-growing app in history, snagging over 100 million users within days. It’s also seen a dramatic and predictable decline in usage as its novelty wears off. Threads’s ultimate success or failure depends on taking a different approach than Twitter: centering social networks above content and functionalities.
As a product, Threads is mediocre. It lacks basic functionalities that we’ve come to expect from social media platforms: DMs, a Following feed, content searches, and more. But those weaknesses are actually key to understanding Threads’s approach: it’s a network-first platform, not a content or product-first platform. It doubles down on what Meta does best and what Twitter does worst — connecting users with people they know.
Social media revolves around network effects; the more users a platform has, the more appeal it has to prospective users. None of us want to post into a void, which is why it’s so important to connect with people we know. Meta has enabled that seamlessly with Threads, allowing users to connect with all their Instagram followers with just a few clicks. Instead of building a following from scratch, users can start posting with a built-in audience.
Twitter, by contrast, has done a comparatively poor job connecting users to one another. Its search functionality is lackluster, it doesn’t allow users to search other users’ followers, and it has a smaller active user base than other major platforms. Twitter’s product design makes it more difficult to find people you know, and its smaller user base only exacerbates that difficulty.
But despite Twitter’s clear weaknesses, it still has one clear advantage over Threads: it’s a content-first platform. It may not be a better place to engage with friends, but it’s a better platform for discovering interesting people and ideas. It has a tab for trending topics, users can easily search and discover content, and the Lists feature allows users to organize content by their interests. Threads has exactly none of those features so far, though it’s likely working on at least some of them. For now, Twitter still has the clear edge in content.
The most significant product differences between Threads and Twitter probably won’t last much longer. But even as the products converge, there’s reason to think the platforms’ respective network-first and content-first approaches will endure. Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly described Threads as a conversations platform, a subtle but important contrast to Elon Musk’s stated vision of Twitter as a public square. The former implies concrete engagement between people, while the latter suggests a more abstract societal dialogue. A similar product with a different culture is a far stronger pitch to mass audiences than a similar product with different management or politics, a trap that previous Twitter competitors have fallen into.
So far, Threads seems to be avoiding politics effectively on all fronts. While distaste for Musk and his political views certainly helps explain Threads’s rapid growth, it’s neither a convincing explanation for the platform’s launch nor a compelling reason for users to stay. Meta launched Threads to the public only days after a massive Twitter outage, clearly hoping to parlay user frustration into signups. And by centering networks rather than content, Meta’s created a dual value proposition: it can build a platform far larger than Twitter, and users get a platform with similar functionalities to Twitter but better engagement. Meta’s politics-agnostic approach has so far prevented Threads from devolving into another liberal Twitter alternative, and it’s taken another important step to sidestep politics: Threads isn’t prioritizing news and political content.
That decision provoked predictable pushback, both from journalists and a loud minority of users. It’s controversial and it’s clearly the right choice. First, it’s difficult to see what unique value news and political content bring to Threads. Users can already find and engage with that content on other platforms, so centering Threads around news and politics probably won’t attract users. It’s also ironic that after years of criticism for its handling of polarizing content, Meta’s decision not to prioritize that content on Threads has drawn criticism from journalists. Of course, plenty of Threads users are already posting toxic political content — that’s inevitable on any social media site. The crucial question isn’t whether that content will exist, but whether the platform decides to augment its reach.
Threads’s network-first approach depends on prioritizing people and experiences above content — and political content could degrade the Threads experience for many users. Politics, like other subjects, should have a place on Threads; vibrant political discourse is crucial for any free society. But there are other conversations to have, and it would be irresponsible for Threads to deliberately boost the most toxic and polarizing ones.
Meta’s acquired a reputation over the last decade for defensive innovation, staving off competitors by rolling out similar features. Stories didn’t kill Snapchat, Reels didn’t kill TikTok, and Threads may not kill Twitter. But this time, Meta’s going on offense, emboldened by Twitter’s decaying functionality and Musk’s oft-erratic leadership. Twitter may stick around and maintain a devoted user base, but it’s unlikely to reinvent a weak product and a static culture. Meta’s starting with a clean slate and has a chance to build something better. With a different vision, it can.
