Yesteryear, I was somewhat addicted to Twitter; I deleted it. Then months after Elon Musk's purchase, I rejoined the network. Now there's its new clone, Threads, which I also joined. It's still early, but if I had to use only one of these two social media platforms now, it'd be...
So Threads has been out for over a week now. Still fresh, it continues to gain millions of new folks — now around 113 million — though the growth rate has slowed. Its civil and upbeat vibe persists. The current core demographic seems to be a mix of popular brands and celebrities (from Instagram) plus journalists (from Twitter). And with a minimalist design and limited feature set, the stream feels cleaner and less cluttered than Twitter's timeline.
Will Threads become the de facto Twitter alternative or replacement? We'll see, but Harry McCracken just published a great overview about it; that one went in my bookmarks folder. I think Threads has a solid future, especially given that many great features are forthcoming. Among them, I'm most eager to see a reverse-chrono "Following" feed sans algorithm.
Politics
Threads seems to lean to the left/liberal side. This is interesting because, for years, it seemed that Twitter leaned left. But nowadays, I think you'll be more comfortable on Twitter than on Threads if you lean to the right.
Is Threads on the left and Twitter on the right?
There are democrats, moderates, and republicans on both Twitter and Threads. But since Elon Musk changed things, Twitter now seems more conservative-friendly than before and more than Threads overall. And while Threads might skew to the left since many liberals likely make up the majority of users, the platform's developers may seek the common middle ground.
If both Twitter and Threads succeed, then maybe it will be okay for one to lean left and the other right. But if only one site survives, then I hope it will be balanced and unbiased with respect to any ideology. Such would be a digital utopia, an infeasible fantasy. Nevertheless, shouldn't we aim for the ideal? And which site, Twitter or Threads, should survive?
Feeds
Regardless which platform, if it has a "Following" (chronologic) feed, then that eliminates the threat or risk of bias. I think it puts everyone on level ground, giving all a fair chance to speak and be heard.
But with a "For you" (algorithmic) feed, content is moderated, filtered, promoted, or sorted in opaque ways. You don't just see what you want; you see what the platform thinks you want. The algorithm curates things, but nobody can ultimately know in what ways or in whose best interest it does so.
With only an algorithmic feed, Threads seems poised to moderate speech more heavy-handedly than Twitter. And while Twitter likewise sports a "For you" timeline, it also provides a "Following" one, helping people avoid the algorithm and potential bias.
Tweets
So if all the features were equal between Threads and Twitter, which one would I choose?
I know what GQ columnist, Chris Black, has chosen: Twitter Is Better Than Ever.
Despite Twitter's issues, I'm liking it more than Threads. Why?
- I can follow more of those on the political right; most aren't on Threads (yet).
- It's nice that Twitter is more of a platform for free-speech (which is not necessarily hate-speech).
- With about three times more people than Threads (around 300 million), Twitter's network remains more extensive, established, and active.
Yet there are caveats. By following mostly conservatives, I'm in a filter-bubble of my own making, which can be problematic. To avoid the radical edges of either the right or the left, I stick to the non-algorithmic feed and carefully omit extremes. Hopefully bots and trolls don't ruin it.
That said, I'm still trying to engage in both Twitter and Threads. Call it a balanced microblogging diet. But my total time on social media is higher overall — a bit of a glut. If I tire of both, I'm likely to disconnect them and blog about it here.