Ah, I see USA Today is keeping up: "A flash in the pan? Just [2] weeks after launch, Instagram Threads app is already faltering."
Daily traffic was 49 million in Week 1 and 23.6 million at the beginning of Week 2. And the time spent on the app has fallen by an even greater percentage, from 21 minutes July 7th to 6 minutes on July 14th.
The author of that article, Jennifer Jolly, offers Threads some advice: "For Threads to wipe out Twitter, it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
Posts
72 comments:
Life imitating The Bee…
I thought the purpose of Threads was to allow itself and Instagram to be the primary 2024 election propaganda method?
Yeah, right! Agree to censorship, shadow banning, outright banning of contrary opinion and you'll have a hit on your hands. What the hell is going on in the US?
“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.” - George Orwell, 1984
"Jennifer Jolly, offers Threads some advice: "For Threads to wipe out Twitter, it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
OK, I really did LOL.
Ha! Jolly’s advice sounds exactly like what people thought they wanted on Threads but didn’t get as it’s impossible.
Would it be OK for Threads to have polarizing figures who spout correct or true information?
"... it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
In other words, it must be Twitter before Musk - a Progressive playpen.
The author of that article, Jennifer Jolly, offers Threads some advice: "For Threads to wipe out Twitter, it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
Is that what they mean by getting your Jolly's?
She is not allowed to write my obit.
Everything she suggests reduces the potential market guaranteeing failure.
ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation,
Like Anthony Fauci suppressing the fact that COVID-19 was bioengineered in the Wuhan labs? Misinformation like that?
Jennifer Jolly, offers Threads some advice: "For Threads to wipe out Twitter, it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
and then, change their name to Tass? or maybe Pravda?
"You got your mind right, and I mean right." cool hand Luke
Anyone remember Google Plus with Google Circles from 2011 to 2019? Wannabe Facebook killer. Gone today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B
https://martinshervington.com/what-are-google-circles/
What about My_________?
People NEED to be told..
People NEED to be told what to think....
People NEED to be told what to believe..
People NEED to be told what to OBEY.....
because; if you leave people on their own.. They Might start thinking wrongthink..
Wrongthink like: How many people were killed on Jan 6th? and WHO killed them???
"For Threads to wipe out Twitter, it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
Isn't that what Threads is supposed to be about? Haven't they been doing that all along? Maybe one of these days Ms. Jolly will figure out that the shit fighting on Twitter is why Twitter dominates!
"For Threads to Wipe Out Twitter..."
So, the unstated objective finally comes out, in a moment of anguish over its dismal performance.
Haven't checked it out yet but Twitter is a hoot, with lots of naughty anti-trans parody accounts.
O the humanity.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..
Tee hee hee.
OMG, that last paragraph.
Sure recipe for success is to ban all content from any person sporting an IQ above room temperature.
Meh... give it a bit longer and it will be perfect new home for the journolist crowd. No one will pay attention to it, so they can coordinate their stories without others noticing. Except how obvious the coordinated stories are.
" ..... make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
Agree to the rules developed and enforce by Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, aka Verbiage Interruptus.
Jennifer Jolly's Guide to Goodthink. How precious.
I get a huge kick when plainly political social media initiatives go splat.
That advice is how you finish killing Threads, not save it.
Humans are attracted to bright, shiny objects until they find new bright, shiny objects.
Threads started off with a huge built in network and the media pretended that network represented excited embracement. It didn’t take long for what every sensible person knew would happen to happen—hardly anybody did more than try out Threads and it wasn’t enough better to overcome the inertia of staying with Twitter.
Has any social media platform ever succeeded by being the next [whoever they are trying to replace]? No, every successful platform succeeded by identifying a niche not served by existing platforms. People won’t leave what they’re used to for something that’s basically the same. Never underestimate the power of inertia.
Threads is a “safe space” for woke idiots.
The scolds won't be happy on Threads because they will not be able to flag and complain about wrong think.
Speaking of advice on content moderation ...
It was fun this morning to verify my humanness and see a comment post immediately. Lively. Thanks for the change-up.
So "Journalist" Jennifer Jolly thinks the way for Threads to work is for it to be exceedingly repressive.
Curious, I did a websearch on Ms Jolly. UCSF graduate.
What a Jolly load of crap to shovel.
“Wipe out… tackle… ban… make everyone…”
Yes, of course. Everyone would want to post on a platform where you're not allowed to say anything.
ROE? Sounds awful confrontational to me. I look at Twitter posts when Althouse links them, and a few other bloggers as well. On my own? Nope.
"OK, I really did LOL."
Me too.
". . . it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
Hey, Hey,
Ho, Ho,
The First Amendment's got to go
Hey, Hey
Ho, Ho
"We need Big Brother to tell us who are polarizing public figures and what is disinformation." Yes, Master."
"For Threads to wipe out Twitter, it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
The author of this hit piece, Jennifer Jolly, is a frequent donator to Act Blue! Which is a $2 billion dollar Democrat Party political action committee that donates to Democrat politicians.
She is in no way an unbiased reporter of information and is NOT a journalist, although she has been planted as one in various outlets. A journalist is precluded ethically from making such monetary donations.
It's important in our society for us to identify and restrict this kind of "fake" journalism.
User engagement peaked, that is hit its highest point, on the third day
She really wants them to fail.
As for being a Twitter killer Threads is deads.
>The author of that article, Jennifer Jolly, offers Threads some advice: "For Threads to wipe out Twitter, it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."<
So basically censor all content they don't like. Let me know how that works out for ya.
Instagram and Facebook’s biggest competitor is Tik Tok, not Twitter.
Social media is for girls and women.
Wait, Threads doesn't have DM's. Then never mind about the new journolist. Threads is garbage.
She left out that everyone must say that they love Big Facebook before they can use Threads.
There's nothing wrong with a public forum with curated comments such as this blog. Just don't pretend it's a venue for free speech.
May favorite anagram of Threads is Hatreds. Coincidence, she's a one funny fucker.
"For Threads to wipe out Twitter, it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen, ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation, and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
You vill assimilate to zee Hive Mind, und you vill like it.
Sounds like terrible advice to me.
There is no truth in Threads and no news in Instagram.
Yes! This is exactly right. We need more censorship. What a weird rabbit hole we have gone down the first thing the media wants is MORE CENSORSHIP. No matter the problem, censorship is the answer.
Elon has become our only hope.
"Censorship now, censorship tomorrow, censorship forever. If you do not adhere to and properly speak today's truth, you will be punished."
Censorship is always wrong. A lot of the time it is evil as well. The only solution to ideas and speech you do not like is more speech. Actually take the time to refute, with facts and logic, why the idea is wrong. Yelling and shouting and banning is not the way. Period.
Do public figures not realize how out of control they are with tossing around the term "misinformation"?
I've watched major, edited publications state someone was spreading "misinformation" when they were:
- Expressing a different opinion
- Being wrong
- Not understanding an issue
Instead of addressing this like normal human beings, these voices need to be silenced! - they proclaim.
"People won’t leave what they’re used to for something that’s basically the same."
The Bud Light folks might have thought the same thing, once upon a time.
" polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation"
Lol That's obviously totally wrong. Entertainment drives engagement, and that's the stuff that seems to entertain people most.
"Blogger tim maguire said...
Has any social media platform ever succeeded by being the next [whoever they are trying to replace]? No, every successful platform succeeded by identifying a niche not served by existing platforms. People won’t leave what they’re used to for something that’s basically the same. Never underestimate the power of inertia.
7/21/23, 11:13 AM"
Actually Parler was on it's way IMO. That is why they killed it.
Levi Starks: "She really wants them to fail."
In the contrary, she really wants them to succeed.
Sadly, as a typical run of the mill leftist, her world view and base assumptions are so utterly warped and moronic she truly does believe she has mapped out a path towards success.
Think of it as her 5 Year Plan and Great Communications Leap Forward combined.
I know the question dates me, but does anyone else see "Threads" and immediately think of the really depressing BBC nuclear war movie?
All the world was talking about threads. I never could see why all the hype, (well kinda, to jab Musk)
The last couple days the media is giving billions of free advertising to 'Barbie'. Why? What are they pushing that makes seeing this movie important?
Good advice. People flock to authorityism.
"What are they pushing that makes seeing this movie important?"
If you're talking about Barbie, you're not talking about Biden.
The person mentioned, Jennifer, seems to be Jolly fascist in favor of more censorship and more scrutiny of what people can say by some unnamed authority figure. Yeah, that's the ticket.
"The person mentioned, Jennifer, seems to be Jolly fascist in favor of more censorship and more scrutiny of what people can say by some unnamed authority figure."
... in favor of more censorship and more scrutiny of what people can say by some unnamed authority figure who she agrees with.
Is that what they mean by getting your Jolly's?
Jennifer sitting on Pinocchio's nose demanding, "Lie to me! Lie to me!"
Is there a Twitter thread on this?
RIP Threads.
The author of that article, Jennifer Jolly, offers Threads some advice: "For Threads to wipe out Twitter
they must turn it into a left-wing shithole where no honest discussion is ever allowed
FIFY
"For Threads to wipe out Twitter, it must tackle news with the best content moderation the world’s ever seen
"the best content moderation" is none. So it's easy to do, if you're not an authoritarian scumbag
ban polarizing public figures who peddle dangerous misinformation
Since one one is qualified to judge in real time what is "dangerous misinformation" vs what is "a truth I don't like", if follows that no one can ever be legitimately banned on these grounds
(Side not: Adam Schiff clearly lied about what classified information he'd seen about "Trump Russia collusion". Who here thinks that qualifies as "dangerous misinformation"?)
and make everyone who uses the app agree to some basic rules of engagement."
ROW:
1: If you feel "attacked", by someone's speech, you are free to block that person. Or you are free to rationally respond to that person
If you may not try to get that person banned
2: No one cares about your skin color. Stop trying to use it to get yourself extra privileges
3: According yourself the status of "victim" does not earn you any privileges. Defining someone else as an "oppressor" does not invalidate his / her argument
So honestly doing what she demanded would make for a great site. Because of course she doesn't want honest implementation
Their basic problem is that most people don't want what they're selling. Twitter sounds fine.
Zuckerberg only ever had one good idea...to steal the concept for Facebook from his college roommates.
Nothing else he has tried to create was particularly successful.
Totalitarians have no idea that they are just that.
I feel bad for Dumb Lefty Mark.
He was so giddy about this little Threads "giant killer app" thingy just the other day.
Post a Comment