←back to thread

Maybe Bluesky has "won"

(anderegg.ca)
461 points GavinAnderegg | 1 comments | 15 Nov 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nabla9 ◴[15 Nov 24 20:06 UTC] No.42150372[source]▶
Threads has 275 million monthly active users.

Bluesky has now 15 million total users (how many active?)

Mastodon monthly active usage has dropped below 1 million.

replies(15): >>42150387 #>>42150417 #>>42150464 #>>42150467 #>>42150473 #>>42150492 #>>42150501 #>>42150507 #>>42150541 #>>42150630 #>>42150749 #>>42150859 #>>42151143 #>>42152051 #>>42152785 #
lynndotpy ◴[15 Nov 24 20:19 UTC] No.42150492[source]▶
I believe Threads active users are artificially conflated with Instagram and Facebook. In all my circles, I don't know anyone who uses Threads
replies(5): >>42150526 #>>42150552 #>>42150657 #>>42150687 #>>42151326 #
nabla9 ◴[15 Nov 24 21:29 UTC] No.42151326[source]▶
I have reasons to believe your belief is incorrect. Thread's app downloads, number of posts etc. match the MAU numbers.

In all my circles is unreliable argument.

replies(3): >>42151816 #>>42153083 #>>42153508 #
1. lynndotpy ◴[16 Nov 24 02:09 UTC] No.42153508[source]▶
I'm not asking you to make any epistemologically unsound leaps, I'm not making an argument. tThis is just my impression. In general, if you're going to rely only on numeric metrics, then you'll be giving up a lot of other helpful information.

You need to use non-numeric information to tell you if "number of posts" should be more meaningful than a HackerNews stranger saying "these are the vibes I get, anecdotally." Numbers are pretty appealing because we have a lot of simple and consistent tools for working with them, but we also know the number of posts on Threads are artificially gamed, because Instagram and Facebook crosspost to Threads by default for anyone who has an account.

But it's still my guess. English is my only fluent language and I don't know even 1000 people. Threads could be wildly popular and I could be blissfully unaware. Again, I'm not asking you to make any epistemologically unsound leaps.