▲ 2018 ▼ Mastodon has hit 2 million active users today! (lemm.ee) submitted 3 years ago by mastermind@lemm.ee to c/fediverse@lemmy.world 188 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] snor10@lemm.ee 23 points 3 years ago (8 children) Wow, two million users, congratulations Mastodon! Threads is at 100 million, so if they federate they will still be completely drowned out. permalink fedilink source hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] mochi@lemdit.com 29 points 3 years ago (1 child) I spent some time on Threads to see how it was and it's a fucking cesspool of like-mongering and look at me oneupsmanship bullshit that was so fucking tiring to look at that I deleted the app after 4 days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lobut@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) Your description of it reminds me of LinkedIn. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago LinkedIn is the very bottom pit of hell of mainstream social media permalink fedilink source parent [+] IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] chakan2@lemmy.world 19 points 3 years ago (1 child) Threads has 100m phantom accounts. A lot of them are bots. Who knows how many of those are real users. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snor10@lemm.ee 7 points 3 years ago This is true, 100m is probably hyperbole. Still, I believe them to have significantly more than 2m active users. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 years ago Well, it would best to compare apples to apples, there are 8M total Mastodon accounts to 108M Threads accounts. For active users if we assume the same active ratio (probably not, but I couldn't find any data for Threads on that from a 1 minute search), then it would be 2 million to 27 million, which is small but it wouldn't "completely" drown out Mastodon. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jdh@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 years ago And our communities will remain strong. The people growing and caring for a free and open Internet will always be here as the minority to large corporations and lowest common denominators of society. I believe it was the official mastodon blog that compared Meta advising xmpp the way they'll abuse the fediverse but we will stand strong. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) Threads created a shadow account for every user on Instagram, so, I dunno. I'm guessing most of those are just dummy accounts that will remain forever inactive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 14 points 3 years ago* (1 child) That number obviously doesn't include those, because Instagram has over 2 BILLION users. It's also easy to see how Threads can quickly get to 100M when that means you just have to convince 5% of your users to try your new platform that they don't even have to sign up for. Again, that's billion with a B. Instagram is unfathomably huge. They only needed 0.1% of their users to rival all of Mastodon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago Good info. Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dreadrat@aussie.zone 7 points 3 years ago I want to know how many people posted or commented, not overall users. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MyFairJulia@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) If i remember correctly, Threads just uses your pre-existing Instagram account so 108 million is a veeeery theoretical number. We will see how many users actually move to Threads and whether our instances don't block Threads instances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aardonyx@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You still need to sign up to/log into Threads (via Instagram) to have a Threads account or be active on there though, so what makes it theoretical? If they counted all Instagram accounts as Threads accounts it'd instantly be in the billions surely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MyFairJulia@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago According to some users, Threads made a bunch of bot accounts to reach 108 million users. However i don't have proof, nor do i know why it's 108 million bots (or copied profiles) instead of around 2 billions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] neblem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Is that 100m active users? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jdh@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago No way permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mochi@lemdit.com 29 points 3 years ago (1 child) I spent some time on Threads to see how it was and it's a fucking cesspool of like-mongering and look at me oneupsmanship bullshit that was so fucking tiring to look at that I deleted the app after 4 days. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lobut@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) Your description of it reminds me of LinkedIn. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago LinkedIn is the very bottom pit of hell of mainstream social media permalink fedilink source parent [+] IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 years ago (2 children) Your description of it reminds me of LinkedIn. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago LinkedIn is the very bottom pit of hell of mainstream social media permalink fedilink source parent [+] IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago LinkedIn is the very bottom pit of hell of mainstream social media permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 19 points 3 years ago (1 child) Threads has 100m phantom accounts. A lot of them are bots. Who knows how many of those are real users. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snor10@lemm.ee 7 points 3 years ago This is true, 100m is probably hyperbole. Still, I believe them to have significantly more than 2m active users. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snor10@lemm.ee 7 points 3 years ago This is true, 100m is probably hyperbole. Still, I believe them to have significantly more than 2m active users. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 years ago Well, it would best to compare apples to apples, there are 8M total Mastodon accounts to 108M Threads accounts. For active users if we assume the same active ratio (probably not, but I couldn't find any data for Threads on that from a 1 minute search), then it would be 2 million to 27 million, which is small but it wouldn't "completely" drown out Mastodon. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jdh@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 years ago And our communities will remain strong. The people growing and caring for a free and open Internet will always be here as the minority to large corporations and lowest common denominators of society. I believe it was the official mastodon blog that compared Meta advising xmpp the way they'll abuse the fediverse but we will stand strong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) Threads created a shadow account for every user on Instagram, so, I dunno. I'm guessing most of those are just dummy accounts that will remain forever inactive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 14 points 3 years ago* (1 child) That number obviously doesn't include those, because Instagram has over 2 BILLION users. It's also easy to see how Threads can quickly get to 100M when that means you just have to convince 5% of your users to try your new platform that they don't even have to sign up for. Again, that's billion with a B. Instagram is unfathomably huge. They only needed 0.1% of their users to rival all of Mastodon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago Good info. Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 14 points 3 years ago* (1 child) That number obviously doesn't include those, because Instagram has over 2 BILLION users. It's also easy to see how Threads can quickly get to 100M when that means you just have to convince 5% of your users to try your new platform that they don't even have to sign up for. Again, that's billion with a B. Instagram is unfathomably huge. They only needed 0.1% of their users to rival all of Mastodon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago Good info. Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago Good info. Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dreadrat@aussie.zone 7 points 3 years ago I want to know how many people posted or commented, not overall users. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MyFairJulia@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) If i remember correctly, Threads just uses your pre-existing Instagram account so 108 million is a veeeery theoretical number. We will see how many users actually move to Threads and whether our instances don't block Threads instances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aardonyx@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You still need to sign up to/log into Threads (via Instagram) to have a Threads account or be active on there though, so what makes it theoretical? If they counted all Instagram accounts as Threads accounts it'd instantly be in the billions surely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MyFairJulia@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago According to some users, Threads made a bunch of bot accounts to reach 108 million users. However i don't have proof, nor do i know why it's 108 million bots (or copied profiles) instead of around 2 billions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aardonyx@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You still need to sign up to/log into Threads (via Instagram) to have a Threads account or be active on there though, so what makes it theoretical? If they counted all Instagram accounts as Threads accounts it'd instantly be in the billions surely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MyFairJulia@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago According to some users, Threads made a bunch of bot accounts to reach 108 million users. However i don't have proof, nor do i know why it's 108 million bots (or copied profiles) instead of around 2 billions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MyFairJulia@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago According to some users, Threads made a bunch of bot accounts to reach 108 million users. However i don't have proof, nor do i know why it's 108 million bots (or copied profiles) instead of around 2 billions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] neblem@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Is that 100m active users? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jdh@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 years ago No way permalink fedilink source parent