forbes.com
Threads Overtakes X in Daily Mobile Users
Meta's Threads surpassed X in daily active mobile users globally this month, but X maintains leads in U.S. users, website visits, and user engagement time.
- How does X retain advantages despite Threads' growth, and what are the implications?
- X still leads in the crucial U.S. market with 21.3 million daily active mobile users compared to Threads' 16.2 million. X also dominates website visits (140.7 million vs. 7.7 million for Threads) and boasts almost double the average user engagement time on Android. This suggests X retains significant user loyalty and engagement despite Threads' rise.
- What is the immediate impact of Threads surpassing X in global daily active mobile users?
- This signifies a potential shift in the social media landscape, with advertisers likely reconsidering their strategies. Meta could see substantial revenue growth from Threads' ad revenue, estimated at $2 billion in 2026 and $9 billion in 2027 by Barclays analyst Ross Sandler.
- What are the long-term implications for both platforms, considering their respective strengths and the ongoing rivalry between their CEOs?
- Threads' integration with Instagram's massive user base (3 billion monthly active users) gives it a significant advantage in user acquisition and targeted advertising. However, X's current lead in the U.S. market and higher user engagement suggest a continued competitive landscape. The rivalry between Zuckerberg and Musk will likely fuel further innovation and aggressive competitive strategies for both platforms.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a relatively balanced comparison of Threads and X, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each platform. However, the framing subtly favors Threads by focusing more on its recent success and growth potential, while X's struggles are presented with more emphasis on negative aspects. For example, the headline itself, while neutral, sets the stage by focusing on Threads overtaking X. The section titled "What Advantage Does Threads Have Over X?" further reinforces this bias by directly addressing Threads' advantages without a corresponding section explicitly detailing X's advantages beyond US user base and website visits.
Language Bias
The language used is mostly neutral, but certain word choices subtly influence the reader's perception. Phrases like "X faced an exodus of users" and "X has struggled to attract advertisers" present X's situation in a negative light. Conversely, descriptions of Threads' growth use more positive language such as "rising user base" and "positive sign for Meta." While the article includes numerical data, the selection and presentation of this data could be considered framing bias. For example, while X's higher US user base is mentioned, it's quickly followed by Threads' global success.
Bias by Omission
The article omits certain crucial pieces of information that could provide a more balanced perspective. While the financial struggles of X are detailed, a comprehensive analysis of Threads' financial performance beyond projected ad revenue is missing. Additionally, the article doesn't delve into the potential negative impacts of Threads' rapid growth, such as increased moderation challenges or potential for misinformation. The article also doesn't explore potential legal issues around Threads' usage of former Twitter employees' knowledge and experience.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by primarily focusing on the competition between Threads and X, neglecting other social media platforms. This oversimplification ignores the broader competitive landscape and prevents a more nuanced understanding of the market dynamics. While the rivalry between Zuckerberg and Musk is a significant factor, the article tends to present the platforms and their owners as two singular opposing forces, lacking analysis of their relationship in the context of other similar products.
Sustainable Development Goals
The competition between Threads and X, and the potential for Threads to gain significant advertising revenue, could influence the digital advertising market and potentially reduce the market power of a single dominant player. This increased competition could lead to more equitable distribution of advertising dollars and opportunities for smaller businesses.