Threads Isn't News-Forward. That's Good.
This was a vast complaint immediately following Hamas's attack on Israel.
One of the things that made Twitter Twitter back in the day was breaking news. If something insane happened, I would go straight to Twitter to see the latest of what was going on. It pushed news via its Trending Topics feature.
Threads has yet to have that type of option right now. It doesn't push news. Theoretically, it could turn something like that on reasonably quickly and dominate traffic when breaking news happens.
But they don't. And that's a good thing.
Makes Misinformation Harder To Spread
Trust me, I'm not naive. Plenty of misinformation floats around Threads.
At the given moment, there doesn't seem to be an incentive algorithmically to be the first to say something. What I see more of are posts that have a longer shelf life. Instead of rewarding the post to break the news first, I've seen more posts with nuance—fewer hot takes.
Slower is Better
Information moves slower on Threads (at least to me), and that's good. It keeps us from jumping to conclusions based on what we see first online - which is rarely accurate.
You're rarely more informed by getting news first. People who engage with the news less frequently are usually better informed than news junkies for that very reason.
I find myself scrolling Threads less than I did with Twitter, but I feel it was designed that way. I'm not going to see news when it breaks there. And I'm okay with that.
Meta May Be Learning From Past Mistakes?
Remember that time Facebook had a trending news section? And how well did that go? It's a mistake they are trying to avoid making again.
Threads intentionally don't push news by design. They believe there are plenty of credible news organizations on Threads to follow if you want breaking news. They just aren't going to push it. Their CEO even said that upon launch. If you can’t see the Thread below, click here.
He may be full of it. Threads may make a hard pivot when Meta's stock price looks threatened. However, this is a healthier approach to building a social network if taken as a statement of good faith. I think he was honest here. It’s not that Meta grew a conscious. The PR nightmares news and politics brings them isn’t worth the incremental ad dollar.
Sure, there are use cases where not being news-forward isn't good. Being less reliant on real-time news or politics makes grassroots organizing more difficult. It could make it harder to build political or social coalitions.
At a 30,000-foot view, at least for now, that's a net positive. Everything is a trade-off, and having a less toxic place to share and read will be better for us.
Time will tell if Threads sticks to the plan.