Who is surprised?
So it’s time to delete my old IG if I can remember the log in, got it.
If you used your real info, you can get it deleted by pretending to live in California. I think that Meta’s compliance page is hard to find.
i am begging fedi users to understand that threads and instagram use the same account
At this point it’s just willful ignorance.
I am kind of disheartened at the amount of people that do not understand how this works and just scream “Meta = bad”.
No, it’s just that users don’t like systems where you have to opt out by default. Like you used to have to opt out of shitty marketing emails after a purchase, but then we changed that to opt in and everyone is happier.
I guess it’s a god thing you have to opt in to Threads, huh?
Reptilian alien who controls the Meta universe: They “trust me”. Dumb fucks.
“Hey, we already have 30 million users in just 3 days! Look everyone how relevant we are!!”
Sure buddy.
Now it makes sense why there already a couple of requests when I briefly installed threads.
There’s plenty of things to hate Meta for, but this is inaccurate.
You log into Threads with your Instagram account. There’s no “shadow account”, you’re logging into a second service with the same account and credentials.
I agree that the wording is inaccurate, but some of the essence remains: the second “service” is forced on you. It’s somewhat as if anyone with a Fakebook account also automatically had a Whatsapp or Instagram account, or some permutation of this.
It’s not forced on you. If you don’t download Threads and log in, you’re not on threads.
This is akin to saying Google Calendar is “forced” on you if you have a Gmail account. They are separate services that use a common credential, you are under no obligation to use any or all of those services.
Google is creating SHADOW Google calendar accounts for you if you use Gmail! Look! I sent my friend a calendar invite but they’ve never even logged into Google calendar!
I get what you’re saying. From my point of view we’re just playing on the semantics of “service” and “app” here. I had indeed the same problem with Google and Hangouts.
I too understand where you’re coming from, but I think it’s an important distinction, not semantics.
If Meta was simply creating a duplicitous profile for every Instagram user, that would be pretty predatory and misleading.
However, if that were the case, they would also be bragging about having 2+ billion Threads “users”.
It also implies that users could interact with these “shadow accounts” even if that person never used Threads, which is not the case.
As it currently works, if you try to mention a user who is on Instagram but isn’t on Threads, nothing happens, the mention is stripped because it’s not a valid handle.
Nah its more like having Telegram prompt me “Jay is on Telegram, say Hi to Jay” when he hasn’t created an account or joined. Currently Telegram only shows those who actively joined. This is the point of the post.
Threads only shows users who have signed in to Threads. If you mention an Instagram user in a Threads post that has not signed in to Threads prior, the mention is removed because it’s not a valid handle.
I urge you to read through the link in the original post to the Mastodon user who originally made this claim, where you’ll find plenty of people more eloquent than me explaining why this is inaccurate.
I followed the link as you suggested. I found a slight correction on the way it works.
A “shadow account” was some layperson’s attempt to describe what happened. That seemed clear to me immediately. It also seems that Threads and Instagram are much more intertwined than users expect.
I understand why this would upset people! I was furious when I tapped one screen wrong and connected my Facebook and Instagram accounts. It can’t be undone. It changed a profile picture. I didn’t quite become angry enough to delete both, but I stopped using them.
Ok, thanks for the info
It’s not forced on you. If you don’t download Threads and log in, you’re not on threads.
Although that’s technically true, it is clear what Meta is doing here (and even if most may know that the company sucks, I personally feel it is important report on things like that). Meta’s tactics should create a hype making people believe there are substantially more users than there actually are. The mass of people won’t recognize (or even care?) what’s going on I’m afraid.
there are substantially more users than there actually are.
Do you have any source for that?
What is Meta doing here? I’m not clear on what the point being made is.
If you’re insinuating that they are doing this to artificially inflate user counts, why wouldn’t they be reporting about how there are 2+ billion threads users in the first week?
They don’t need to manufacture hype - like Meta or not, in the first 96 hours they brought in almost 100 million users. Thats a third of Twitter’s entire active user base, in less than a week.
It seems we agree to disagree. The point I make is pretty clear, and it doesn’t make sense if you repeating your arvuments over and over again.
But the point you’re making isn’t clear which is why I asked if you could clarify - what is the point you’re making?
@0x815@feddit.de seems pretty clear to me buddy. I’m not sure what you aren’t getting.
Yeah, they probably just duplicated the username DB from instagram, so whenever someone starts using Threads, their username will already be “reserved” for them in an empty profile.
It’s probably even more simple than that - a single DB with a flag for threads_enabled = true/false.
They made it super clear in advance this is how it would work, the app is called “Threads, an Instagram app”, but as always people froth at the mouth for any opportunity to say “Zuckerberg bad”.
That’s not some big secret. Everyone knows meta sucks. We don’t need to make stuff up to prove that. They do that on their own.
Okay, but that still means their user count is fake.
Instagram has over a billion users.
Their user count is the number of Instagram users that have activated threads.
If you follow someone who hasn’t, it will automatically follow them if they do activate. That doesn’t mean they created some shadow profile.
I don’t think that’s true. Example: a band I love has a Instagram at remembersportsband if I search threads for that name nothing comes up so I cannot follow them because they have not joined threads
They may have bulk imported a collection of accounts from Instagram into Threads to “kickstart” the site. And not every account was part of the collection.
This is simply not true. Meta is not duplicating accounts into Threads. Your Threads and Instagram account are the exact same account. You delete one, you delete the other. There is no way to create a Threads account without first creating an Instagram account. And Threads is an opt-in application so you won’t have it enabled for your IG account unless you sign up for it.
I’m not surprised because Meta said they were doing just that. Anyone who had an account on Instagram automatically has an account reserved for them on Threads. I don’t see anything nefarious about it.
This is stupid. If you “follow” someone who is on Instagram but isn’t on Threads, it automatically follows them when/if they sign up for Threads. It even tells you this on the page.
How does it know you exist? Because it suggests you follow everyone you are already following on Instagram. It is using your Instagram account, there is no standalone Threads account. This isn’t rocket science.
When they say the numbers, they are talking about the number of Instagram users that have also signed up for Threads. For a while it when put a badge on your Instagram profile with what sign up number you were.
It’s not stupid, you shouldn’t be able to discover users in one service from another unless those user have explicitly opted in. It’s not a technical issue, it’s a principals issue.
In this case, you create a Threads account and you should be able to discover everyone else who has also made a Threads account (cos that’s the point), but you shouldn’t be able to see Instagram only users unless they have explicitly said that’s ok.
This is probably all ‘explained’ in the T&C’s, buts that’s getting into a whole other thing
There is no such thing as a Threads account.
There is nothing to see except for account names you are already following, in a specific onboarding screen that tells you that it is doing that. You cannot discover people who haven’t created a Threads profile. This is like being upset that your Facebook friends show up in Facebook Messenger, and far less intrusive than say, LinkedIn invites.
Actually it’s more like being upset that Facebook friends show up in WhatsApp.
The user in the link is upset because their IG profile is now visible in a different service and they did not explicitly consent to this.
And of course there is such a thing as a Threads account, you even refer to it in your second paragraph. Just because they share a common IDP doesn’t mean they aren’t a distinct service. It’s effectively single sign on without the appropriate privacy protections.
It’s cool that you’re into the whole thing, but other people aren’t and they have a right to be pissed off. GDPR and the like weren’t created for no reason.
No, it’s like being upset that your Facebook friends show up in Facebook Messenger.
WhatsApp is a standalone and separate product. “Threads, an Instagram app” is not.
Their IG profile is not visible in threads. Their username is visible to people who already follow them.
It’s not a matter of being into the whole thing, it’s a matter of people with an axe to grind being intentionally misleading about what is actually happening, and others being ignorant because they won’t bother to double check (which is reasonable, but they could at least admit their ignorance). Accurate statements are much more powerful.
Please, explain how GDPR applies. Try to be specific.
Okay, clearly you’re just here to to be contrary or whatever. Maybe you don’t like that people have different opinions than you. Maybe you’re a Zuck fanboy and can’t hack being on the wrong side of the fence. Maybe you’re part of some FaceBook/Meta conspiracy to brigade.
If you’re so smart and confident that you’re correct, why don’t you show me the bit where GDPR doesn’t apply? Burden of proof on the accuser and all that.
Here is a link to a search, where the first page of results is showing that when Facebook bought WhatsApp this exact same issue popped up - what was once two distinct services suddenly started sharing data, despite user dissent. We’ve seen this before, and people are pissed off just like before.
I hope you step on some Lego in a dark room. You could use that to post to your Threads account! 🤙
You are being very aggressive for an opinion based argument.
