Does Mark Zuckerberg even want threads to replace Twitter?

Meta so far has purposefully designed Threads to be a place ignorant of life’s complications. Photo: Bloomberg

There was a curious exchange on Meta Platforms Inc.'s new Threads app last weekend — curious in that there wasn't really an exchange at all. An angry American Airlines passenger posted a message asking the airline why their flight had been cancelled… and nothing happened.

It spoke to the crucial difference between Threads and the site it might replace Twitter with. The same complaint over on Elon Musk's app probably would have seen the airline's customer service operation spring into action, replying to the user in fear that shoddy treatment would first be seen by dozens, then hundreds, and then maybe thousands. 

The risk of going viral on Twitter — for the wrong reasons — is what kept many companies, politicians and other prominent entities in check. This proximity to power made Twitter a breakthrough. It brought both positive and negative consequences. 

Fearing the latter, Meta so far has purposefully designed Threads to be a place ignorant of life's complications. With 100 million users as of Monday, the strategy seems to be paying off for the moment. But many of those who have joined are scrolling through their feeds and thinking: Who are these people? And why are they talking such drivel?

On Threads, everything is awesome. Flights don't get delayed. Food deliveries don't go missing. Politicians don't get dunked on for incendiary takes, and journalists don't opine on every detail of uncomfortable breaking news. Instead, faceless brands trade hilarious "jokes" with each other while influencers broadcast crucial wisdom like "be true to yourself." Thoroughly boring stuff; the live-laugh-love of social networks. 

The company has no qualms about this. Adam Mosseri, the Meta executive in charge of Threads and its parent app, Instagram, said his goal was to create a "vibrant platform without needing to get into politics or hard news," as a means of avoiding "scrutiny" and "negativity."

Mosseri conceded that news and political content will no doubt appear on Threads, but said the company would do nothing to encourage or promote it, believing it simply isn't worth the hassle.

This is a depressing U-turn for a company that at one point claimed to care so much about quality news that it paid trustworthy news organisations to create bespoke content for Facebook's live platform. That initiative, one of several, came as a reaction to claims it had poisoned democracy by allowing misinformation to flourish. Now, it has backed away from engaging on even the most basic level. Less news means less fake news, I guess.

Similarly, as we approach a presidential election year, content about politics, or by politicians, won't be amplified or encouraged on Threads. That might be a way to avoid being accused of political bias (even though the platform will be, anyway). The platform that used to boast it cared deeply, and energised voter turnout, has decided that Threads doesn't need to go there.

Many people will welcome all this. It's easy to understand why. Who wouldn't want an end to doom-scrolling, or, worse, racist and sexist vitriol that too often surfaced in our feeds? Haven't we suffered enough from never-ending streams of bad news? Hasn't the noise of politics and the desperate search for attention brought an incurable division among us? 

These sentiments have driven people to Threads, where the relief at escaping Twitter's toxicity has been evident. We're barely a week in and already analysts are talking about Threads one day generating upward of $8 billion per year in additional revenue for Meta if it can reach a consistent 200 million monthly active users.

For that value to materialise, however, engagement will need to be high — high enough to attract the wads of advertising that power social sites. It's no good for Threads to be an app people download and then check occasionally. It needs to provoke a muscle memory for idle thumbs like Twitter is (or was).

It won't get there if it continues to shut out the real world. Collective global events are what give social networks staying power: It was US Airways' "Miracle on the Hudson" flight in 2009, news of which first broke on Twitter, that demonstrated to people how vital the new network would become.

Threads' current momentum, which has miraculously reframed Meta as an exciting company, will quickly lose steam if the "town square" is sanitised into nothing more than a picture-less Instagram, a network known first and foremost as a place that puts an unrealistic sheen on reality. News this week that Meta was hurrying to launch tools for advertisers on Threads shows where its priorities lie.

If we lose Twitter — which, with Threads' launch success, has become more likely — the public will still be lacking a centralised place to go when the next major breaking news event occurs, whether it's a natural disaster or a World Cup final. Along with it, we'll have lost the power of the individual to make themselves heard, whether to ignite a social cause or just to complain about American Airlines (and actually get a response). 

Threads isn't going to fill that void, nor does Meta seem to want it to. It's too difficult, too inconvenient and too expensive. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has created a safe space, alright — safe for those who run it and seek to monetize it. And safe, in particular, for those who were afraid of the public accountability that made Twitter so electric. The search for an alternative continues.

Dave Lee. Sketch: TBS

Dave Lee is Bloomberg Opinion's US technology columnist

Disclaimer: This article first appeared on Bloomberg, and is published by special syndication arrangement.