Skip to main content


Meta says they now have half a billion monthly active users on #Threads.

This is about 100x that of #Bluesky, and about 500x that of #Mastodon, at only about 3 years old. How do *you* explain this?

about.fb.com/news/2026/06/meta…

in reply to Johannes Ernst

the real question is: why would we trust vanity metrics released by Meta - which has juiced its numbers so many times in the past? They are amongst the least trustworthy companies in the world! I bet they’re counting Instagram numbers (automatic cross-posting and similar shenanigans)
in reply to Elena Rossini 🌈

@_elena Yes, and there is probably also a bunch of social media marketing advice about how installing and posting to Threads will boost views on the other Meta platforms (remember how Google Plus was supposedly a big SEO win for Google Search?)
in reply to Elena Rossini 🌈

@_elena why do we “need” to trust them, or be in awe of (or chase) whatever number they invent?

It’s all financial engineering, highly speculative.

If they are going to put up numbers like that, then they should be completely transparent and auditable. That’s never going to happen.

in reply to Elena Rossini 🌈

@_elena to be specific: cohenmilstein.com/case-study/d…

> Documents produced by Meta have confirmed that senior executives at the company knew for years that its “potential reach” metric was inflated – yet they failed to do anything, and even took steps to cover up the problem. [...] For example, among 18-34-year-olds in Chicago, Meta asserted its “Potential Reach” was approximately 4 times (400%) higher than the number of real 18-34 year-olds with Facebook accounts in Chicago.

in reply to Elena Rossini 🌈

@_elena
well, if only they would have implemented real, serious, two way #fediverse federation, we could have seen all those wonderful posts ...