I was so curious to see how Meta’s Threads play out.
Meta announced the app right when Twitter was in a hot mess of shit under Elon’s newly acquired control. So everybody was making their own guess whether this new app could potentially be Twitter’s killer.
Given Meta's commitment to maintaining a family-friendly environment across its platforms, their approach to content moderation on Threads is notably stricter compared to X. Unlike X, which has become more permissive under Elon Musk's leadership, allowing adult content to proliferate, Threads enforces stringent guidelines that prohibit explicit material.
This censorship is implemented through a combination of advanced AI algorithms and human review teams, ensuring that any content deemed inappropriate, such as nudity or sexually explicit images, is swiftly removed. By maintaining these standards, Meta aims to create a space that is accessible to a broader audience, including younger users and those who prefer a cleaner, more moderated online environment.
However, this raises questions about the balance between free expression and the need for content control and how this impacts the overall user experience on Threads. Given its notorious censorship, would it really be any less toxic than the state of X now?
My curiosity was piqued because, up until then, Twitter wasn't particularly popular in Vietnam, except for its use as a porn platform. So, I was eager to see if the culture on this new app would be any different.
I have been on Threads for a while now. And, unfortunately for us, it was exactly the same.
1. the state of threads
Our favorite conspired-lizard-man billionaire hastily pushed Threads out, despite having only barebones features, in a bid to capture users evacuating from the sinking ship of Twitter under Musk’s leadership (their relationship got so bad they almost had a case fight).
But for Vietnamese users, this presented a second chance: a chance to engage with a short-form, text-based platform outside of X—an app notoriously plagued by pornography and aptly living up to its name. Threads is a Twitter clone, but Meta is introducing the concept to never-tweeters who have been on Instagram.
In Vietnam, Threads has quickly become a focal point for discussions, particularly around celebrity culture and public scandals. The platform’s rapid adoption, apart from its direct connection to Instagram, can be attributed to its ability to facilitate real-time conversations and its relative “novelty” compared to more established networks like Facebook.
Meta's Threads has rapidly become a hub of chaotic online activity, shooting opinions information left and right to everyone’s face at an overwhelmingly violent speed. The platform is distinguished by its high volume of interactions and the rapid dissemination of information.
Threads, at the same time, has also become the ideal breeding center for online toxicity, especially in the context of Vietnamese online culture. Threads foster echo chambers where groupthink prevails and dissenting voices are quickly silenced. This environment has made Threads a hotbed for cancel culture, where reputations and careers are destroyed almost overnight, fueling a cycle of negativity.
Vietnamese culture, traditionally grounded in respect, deference, and the collective good, seems almost at odds with these behaviors that Threads promotes. The design of Threads, which rewards brevity and instant engagement, amplifies these sharp bursts of commentary and serves them as its most unique selling point.
So why has Threads in Vietnam evolved into such a chaotic state? Is it merely a consequence of the platform’s design, or does it reflect something deeper about our digital culture?
It seems the tools intended to connect us are instead encouraging us to fragment our thoughts, prioritizing the ephemeral over the substantive. This raises a troubling question: Are we losing our ability to engage in genuine dialogue, think critically, and appreciate depth in an increasingly superficial digital age?
2. different platforms, different interactions
design and purpose of Threads
The conversation that is happening on Threads is mostly weaved by the design of the platform, i.e., the features that Threads includes and the way those features are presented to the users.
The platform's design supports fast, conversation-led exchanges, which Meta intended to capitalize on the shifting dynamics in social media, especially as Twitter faced its own challenges under Musk’s rule.
Threads, as a platform, was intentionally designed to prioritize brevity and speed in user interactions. This emphasis on short-form content means that users are encouraged to share quick thoughts, reactions, and opinions, often in a matter of seconds. The platform’s interface and user experience are tailored to support rapid exchanges, where the primary focus is on immediacy rather than depth.
This design choice reflects a broader trend in social media towards instant gratification, where users can quickly post and consume content without needing to engage in more extended contemplation or analysis.
impact on dialogue
The inherent structure of Threads limits the potential for more nuanced and considered dialogue. When users are confined to short posts, there is less room for complex arguments, detailed explanations, or the exploration of multiple perspectives.
Sure, many people like shorter dialogues, shorter videos, shorter everything. They are more memorable, more exciting to the brain, and more easy to consume. Like how we all collectively remember Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2: it’s simple, it’s impactful. But most of us cannot quote shit on the general theory of relativity. But literally no one would give any less fucks if Einstein just throws the equations out there on Threads. The equation barely makes sense with 40 pages of paper elaborating on it.
Instead, the platform fosters a communication style that is more direct and, most of the time, oversimplified. This can lead to a reduction in the quality of discourse, as users may resort to soundbites, slogans, or catchy phrases that can be easily shared and quickly consumed but which lack the depth required for meaningful conversation.
The rapid-response nature of Threads encourages more impulsive reactions. The platform’s design rewards immediacy, often pushing users to post their thoughts and opinions as quickly as possible. This can result in content that is more reactionary and emotionally charged, as there is less time for reflection before responding. In environments like Threads, where the pace of interaction is fast, users may feel pressure to keep up with the flow of conversation, leading them to post hastily without fully considering the implications or consequences of their words.
I have never thought I would praise Facebook’s design, but in contrast to Threads, its structure allows for a different type of interaction. Facebook supports longer posts, which gives users the opportunity to develop their ideas, maybe not perfectly, but more fully. Whether through detailed status updates, shared articles with commentary, or extended captions accompanying images and videos, Facebook’s format enables users to express more complex thoughts and engage in more thoughtful discussions. The ability to include various content types—such as images, videos, links, and polls—adds further layers to the interaction, allowing for richer and more diverse communication.
Threaded comments on Facebook also play a crucial role in facilitating in-depth discussions. Users can respond directly to specific points made in a post or comment, creating a nested conversation that unfolds over time. This structure encourages back-and-forth dialogue, where participants can ask questions, clarify points, and build on each other’s ideas. The asynchronous nature of Facebook discussions means that users can take their time to craft responses, leading to more reflective and well-considered interactions.
I have to say that I’m heavily biased towards long-form content, as you would have guessed seeing the length of this post. But I dare to argue that, some discussions aren’t meant to be short. But we are seriously trying to discuss everything on the universe, on a platform that limits how many words we can put in a post.
identity experimentation vs. established norms
When new platforms like Threads emerge, users often see them as fresh spaces to explore and push boundaries. This leads to more extreme behavior as users test the limits of the community and the platform’s moderation.
When Threads first launched, many quickly drew parallels with X (formerly Twitter). So it was only natural that some users tried posting porn on Threads as well. However, those attempts failed spectacularly, given Facebook's far stricter policies on explicit material. There are kids using the platform too, you sick fuck. Still, this hasn’t stopped users from pushing the boundaries on Threads, constantly testing how far they can go, from asking overly sexual questions to stating cannot-be-more-obvious rage bait statements.
Facebook, having been around for much longer, has more established norms and community standards that have developed over time. Users on Facebook often belong to specific groups or communities with their own rules and expectations, which moderate behavior. You don’t go around arguing with everyone because you’re afraid your mom will see it.
But your mom is not on Threads, neither are most of your friends or the group or community that you have been participating in.
Threads, being newer, lacks these established norms, and the communities that were formed elsewhere. This certainly created a more chaotic environment where users are less certain about acceptable behavior, and more frequent to be pushing boundaries.
algorithmic amplification and celebrity cancellation
Threads has been around for only one year, and let’s be honest, not that many of the people who you care about post on it. I have over 200 friends on Instagram, and I have only seen 2 people regularly post anything on Threads.
But Threads desperately need something interesting to push to your feed for you to keep scrolling, to keep opening and staying on the app.
Platforms like Threads or Facebook need to keep users engaged because their business models often rely heavily on advertising revenue, which is directly tied to the amount of time users spend on their platforms. The more time users spend, the more ads they see, and the more data the platform can collect to improve ad targeting. This increases the value of the ads they sell, making it critical for these platforms to maximize user engagement.
So the algorithms that power content discovery on Threads prioritize posts that generate high engagement, most of which more often than not include controversial or provocative content.
But the biggest problem with Threads isn’t toxic disagreement; it’s toxic agreement.
Threads, like Tiktok, is algorithmically curated. That means when you come in on the app, you see a bunch of different posts based on your interests, i.e. what you interacted with, whether they were posted five or ten hours ago.
That’s a major difference from Twitter, where the organization of the feed is the reverse chronological timeline of tweets. That means you see every single post from people you follow in reverse order, which made Twitter the perfect instrument for breaking news and live events.
The most alarming sight of this design of Threads is its tendency to polarize people. People enthusiastically agree with each other. Every day, herds of threaders instantly rally around The Correct Opinion on today’s trigger topic. Everyone offers, at best, minor variations on the theme and rarely develops it with any original thought. But at scale, it becomes smug, sickly, and mindless, infuriating even when you agree with the opinion.
But this does not stop as merely people talking around a topic; just like any civil discussion happening from 1789 until now, enough people get triggered, someone’s head getting chopped off.
Every week there is a new witch hunt for the next canceled celebrity. Almost every celebrity cancellation movement in Vietnam now takes roots from Threads and is mainly discussed on Threads before the discussion gets brought up to other platforms. I’m not saying that they might or might not deserve to be cancelled. Some really do, some really don’t. But it’s frightening that every two weeks people just found the next public figures whose career they would like to destroy. At least this shows that Threads in fact succeeds in creating a discussion.
While Facebook also uses the algorithms, Threads' design creates an even more intense feedback loop, where the most sensational or divisive posts are more likely to go viral.
ephemeral nature of interaction
The fast-paced nature of Threads, where content is quickly buried by newer posts, contributes to a sense of impermanence. This encourages users to post more extreme or off-the-cuff comments, believing they will quickly be forgotten. Imagine it like this, everything you ever said to anyone will be forgotten in 30 seconds. Would you not try to say something just completely batshit banana crazy sometimes?
Is this phenomenon inherently bad? Not really. The knowledge that your words are ephemeral, quickly replaced by the next wave of content, might make you more willing to take risks, push boundaries, or express controversial opinions that you wouldn’t normally share in a more permanent or slower-paced environment. To some, like myself, this is a more desired state of conversation that should be happening more on social media.
However, of course this would have its own negative effects. The drive to stand out in an ocean of million pieces of fleeting content pushed out every day leads to increasingly extreme behavior as users try to one-up each other in the rat race for attention. Over time, this creates an echo chamber where the loudest, most provocative voices dominate, while more thoughtful, measured contributions are drowned out by the noise.
user demographics and behavior patterns
As much as I hate to say it, younger people are fucking nuts. And as a platform designed for your younger people, Threads is a fucking nut tree. But science has a beautiful explanation for this.
brain development and risk-taking behavior
The adolescent brain is still undergoing significant development, particularly in the prefrontal cortex—the region responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and rational thought.
This part of the brain doesn't fully mature until the mid-20s, which fits neatly into the user demographic of Threads.This means that during adolescence and early adulthood, individuals are more prone to impulsive decisions and risk-taking behavior.
This biological factor is compounded by an overactive reward system in the brain, specifically in the nucleus accumbens, which drives young people to seek out novel and exciting experiences. The thrill of taking risks can outweigh the potential consequences in their minds, leading to behaviors that older, more mature individuals might avoid.
the influence of peer influence
Social dynamics play a crucial role in shaping the behavior of people. Peer influence is particularly potent during adolescence and early adulthood. The desire to fit in and gain approval from peers can push young individuals to engage in reckless activities that they might not consider when alone.
In group settings, this effect is magnified, as the collective energy and the fear of social rejection can drive risk-taking to new heights. The need for social acceptance often overrides individual caution, leading to actions that can seem irrational or dangerous.
emotional regulation and conflict resolution
Emotional regulation is another critical area where young people are still developing. Adolescents and young adults often experience more intense emotional reactions due to the ongoing maturation of their emotional regulation systems.
When confronted with challenging situations or differing opinions, they may struggle to manage their emotions effectively, leading to more frequent and heated arguments. Additionally, because they are still honing their conflict resolution skills, young people may find it difficult to de-escalate disagreements, causing minor disputes to spiral into significant confrontations.
cultural and generational factors
Cultural and generational shifts also contribute to the behavior of young people, particularly when it comes to expressing opinions and engaging in debates.
In many cultures, younger generations are encouraged to be more outspoken and to challenge established norms. This empowerment leads to more visible and fervent discussions, especially on topics that resonate deeply with them, such as social justice, climate change, and politics. The current generation of young people is more connected and informed than ever before, which can lead to passionate, sometimes heated, exchanges as they advocate for the causes they believe in.
Given these developmental, social, and cultural factors, it’s no surprise that Threads, a platform designed for young people, often reflects this intense, impulsive, and sometimes, fucking psychotic.
So, with all this in mind, the big question is: Can we actually turn Threads into a more constructive space, perhaps a litle chill, even? Is it possible to steer all that energy into something more positive, or is the chaos just part of the deal because of who’s using it and how the platform is set up?
3. can we fix Threads?
If a random kid who has a blog on the Internet can discuss the problems that Threads have, clearly the developers of Threads, clearly Mark Zuckerberg would recognise and fix them, right?
The problem with the problems on Threads is that they are only our problem, not the platform’s problem. When we talk about what’s “wrong” with Threads, we’re discussing issues that affect our personal experience or clash with our expectations of what the platform should be. But from the perspective of the platform’s creators, these aren’t necessarily problems—they are the intended features.
Threads wasn’t snatched out of a space vacuum and put on people’s faces. It was built with a specific purpose, influenced by Meta’s broader goals, market research, and strategic vision. The platform’s design choices, from its user interface to the way it encourages interaction, are deliberate decisions aimed at achieving those goals.
If the ephemeral nature of content on Threads frustrates you, it might be precisely all goes according to plan. This isn't an oversight—it's a reflection of the intended user experience, one that aligns with Meta's business model and vision.
From this perspective, what we see as problems may not be problems for the platform at all. They might be considered successful implementations of its core design principles. The platform is working exactly as intended—it’s just that our expectations don’t align with that intention.
So, can we fix Threads?
The answer depends on what we mean by “fix.” If fixing Threads means aligning it more closely with our personal preferences or the ideals of discourse we value, the odds are slim. Our ideals do not invite ad revenue; Zuckerberg’s ideals do. These platforms are money printers in the making, guided by a complex mix of user data, business goals, and corporate strategy. While user feedback is undoubtedly important, it’s weighed against these broader objectives. In other words, who gives a fuck about your opinions?
"If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."
Andrew Lewis, technology entrepreneur and writer
But if fixing Threads means making it more aligned with its creators' vision, then perhaps it doesn’t need fixing at all. The platform’s problems, as we perceive them, are our problems—not necessarily the platform’s.
The truth is that Threads, like TikTok or Twitter, aren't social networks. At least on how you and I know it. All are broadcasting platforms for big brands, celebrities, politicians, and media outlets to share information with their followers. And when individuals engage on Threads, we tend to copy one of these people. It’s like suddenly everyone was given a TedTalk stage without any guidelines.
This kind of network doesn't reflect how people naturally socialize in communities. In social clubs, people gather in smaller groups based on shared interests. They don't cram into a massive conference hall and shout over one another, as we often do on platforms like Twitter and now Threads.
I was not an early adopter of Threads. I was not even the on-time adopter. I just started to use Threads recently, when the hype is almost as lively as a skeleton on a desert. I was not a really big fan of the premise of the app: something Musk churned out to try to replace Twitter.
But eventually I gave in. Partly because I was curious, partly because Instagram fucking nagged me about my absence on Threads every time I went on the app.
I think that it’s hard to say whether you should use Threads or not. I think like any other tools or technology, it depends on what you want out of the apps and what your needs are. If you want to be educated on the world’s latest news, to engage in meaningful conversation, and to interact with your close friends, Threads is definitely not the right app to use. Matter of fact, there is no app for that at all. Try going to your local cafe or something.
Threads is still in its basic form at the moment. Threads, like any other behemoth apps out there in the wild, will evolve into something much worse than it initially is. Knowing Mr. Zuckerberg, I know that eventually I would see an ad for every two threads if he was feeling generous.
At the moment, I’m caught in the inconvenient juggling act of posting different content to five different platforms, and it's the opposite of the word "enjoyable.” But I’m assuming something will eventually die off. At least, that’s what I’m hoping for.
I’ll prefer Twitter, to be honest. The memes are funnier there.
Heyyy!!! You just spend a lot of time researching and reflecting on your user experience to write this so long and detailed post. That’s crazy! I appreciated it so much since I was the person who fall in love with Threads a while ago. At that time, Threads is like a daily diary to me, cute and helpful posts are all over the place, which makes me very healing. Unfortunately, I’m feeling like I don’t want to use Threads anymore these days with the reason exactly like you mentioned above. Well, it’s kinda sad to know that your favorite app one is not like your expectation anymore, but I really grateful for finding this post instead to strengthen my decision one more time. Thank you for your writing so much, keep it up 😉
Personally, besides cancel culture, Threads also perpetuates positive ideas e.g. culture (nostalgia for traditional values), and patriotism (to some extent :D). But its algorithm seems to favor negativity over positivity, even more extreme than Facebook :<
P.S. Actually, I find replying to comments on Threads racks my brain more than on Facebook, esp. for controversial threads, because I know that my response will be scrutinized. I'll try my best to present my arguments within the word limit, so sometimes it's a quest of concision =)))