[ea550ff70a]

>My verdict: Threads sucks shit. It has no purpose. It is for no one. It launched as a content graveyard and will assuredly only become more of one over time.

The writer's is clearly mad at life here. Threads is fine. The content is fine. The design is fine. The algorithm is also fine. Not everyone is into whatever nonsense is happening in the twitterworld.

[wpietri]

One of my big rules is to mostly listen to product feedback from actual users. Are you using it on a daily basis? What makes it especially good for you?

Because "fine" generally doesn't cut it. There are things I use because I love them, or at least I'm addicted to them. For me, Twitter was like that. There are things I use because I have to. Like LinkedIn. But a nonessential product being seen as "fine" by people who don't use it? That sounds like the kiss of death to me.

[lmm]

The likes of GMail (or indeed Facebook) are, y'know, fine, and seem pretty successful that way. Frankly a good social network should annoy some portion of the Twitter crowd; there's something uniquely nasty about Twitter and replicating it wholesale is a mistake.

[unmole]

The bulk of Twitter's active userbase seemed to consist of people whoabsolutely hated twitter but were addicted to it.

The overwhelming majority of products are bought because they are perceived to be useful. Loving a social network sounds a bit creepy, to be honest.

[warkdarrior]

The writer also did not give any hints to the Threads algorithm about what he likes or prefers (he did not follow, he barely clicked on things, etc.). It's like going to Netflix and just browsing without watching any movies, and then complaining that Netflix "has no purpose" and "is for no one."

[anonymoushn]

Most of the article makes no sense, but Threads won't really be usable as "a Twitter" until there's a feed of people you follow.

[shortrounddev2]

or the ability to discover content rather than people