It\u2019s being called the \u201cTwitter Killer.\u201d Meta\u2019s Threads aims to be a happier, warmer alternative to other microblogging sites. But what will yet another social-media platform do to the rest of us?\u00a0<\/p>\n
Facebook owner Meta Psychologists and social-media analysts are skeptical \u2014 not so much about Threads\u2019 potential success and the buzz it\u2019s already created, but about how another social-media platform will affect mental health, political discourse, the spread of misinformation and the amplification of racism and hate speech, something Zuckerberg has endeavored to address. Privacy experts also worry about the information Threads can collect from your phone \u2014 your location, browsing and purchase history, even your health information.<\/p>\n Dr. Don Grant, national adviser for healthy device management for Newport Healthcare, has worked on the relationship between people and their devices for 14 years and understands that social media brings people together. But looking at the proliferation of fake news and political spats on Twitter, he is also aware that it increasingly tears them apart. Studies have linked social media to body dysmorphia among young people and to depression. They, and we, compare and despair. Social-media and smartphone apps have also been shown to be addictive.\u00a0<\/p>\n Grant\u2019s first thought when he read about Threads was: \u201cWhy? Let\u2019s all go back to MySpace. What was wrong with MySpace? MySpace was fun. MySpace was friendly. And Classmates.com. I found some friends from high school. I don\u2019t know whether we need any of it.\u201d <\/p>\n He worries that young people are the \u201cvirtual canaries\u201d in the social-media coal mines. \u201cIt\u2019s unvetted. Anyone can go on social-media platforms,\u201d he told MarketWatch. \u201cThis juggernaut has become the most influential thing that exists for man. Anyone can put anything out there.\u201d<\/p>\n Also see:<\/strong> <\/strong>Social media offer us two choices: Orwell\u2019s hell, or Huxley\u2019s<\/p>\n Sander van der Linden, a professor of social psychology at the University of Cambridge and the author of \u201cFoolproof: Why We Fall for Misinformation and How to Build Immunity,\u201d sees more fragmentation with the launch of yet another forum similar to Twitter and to Truth Social, the conservative platform created by Trump Media & Technology Group, which reportedly only has a couple of million of active monthly users. <\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s necessarily a good thing that there are so many social-media sites,\u201d van der Linden told MarketWatch. \u201cThe echo chambers erode conversations and discourse. But we don\u2019t want one company to dominate the market. When people splinter off into their own echo chambers, some of these effects intensify. People who don\u2019t agree with the mainstream media and blame censorship get more extreme in these echo chambers \u2014 reverberating their own information without any quality control.\u201d <\/p>\n Grant agrees. \u201cDo we need any of it? The idea of competition and checks and balances is great,\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything wrong with that. We\u2019ve seen so many come and go. But I don\u2019t like monopolies. This is just one more piece for Meta\u2019s \u2018fediverse\u2019 \u2014 Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and now Threads. That\u2019s a lot of control over a lot of people over a lot of platforms.\u201d <\/p>\n Facebook alone has nearly 3 billion monthly users. Meta\u2019s fediverse, in theory, connects and shares information among platforms.<\/p>\n Meta, Twitter and Truth Social did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n Van der Linden has advised Meta on how to counter disinformation, but he is not confident that toxicity won\u2019t rear its head on Threads as it has on other social-media platforms. \u201cI\u2019m quite skeptical that the incentives are not going to be driven by ad revenue, polarization and outrage,\u201d he said. \u201cUntil we have clear evidence that Meta has radically changed its business model, I think we\u2019re just going to have another social-media platform \u2014 another that we\u2019re going to worry about in terms of potentially spreading misinformation and how to debunk it.\u201d<\/p>\n Related:<\/strong> This \u2018Thread\u2019 social platform existed years before Meta\u2019s new app \u2014 and it could sue, experts say\u00a0<\/p>\n Dr. Emma Svanberg, a clinical psychologist working in London and the author of a book called \u201cParenting for Humans,\u201d said people were excited about Threads, hence the high number of early sign-ups. \u201cThe simplicity of Threads seemed to appeal to our essential need for community,\u201d she told MarketWatch. <\/p>\n Svanberg sees this as a positive sign that people are seeking out friendlier places for sharing information. \u201cWhile we talk a lot about the downsides of social media, there is also evidence to show that it can have benefits, including connection to others, education and activism,\u201d she added.\u00a0<\/p>\n But many psychologists, economists and activists also say that the problems caused or exacerbated by social media \u2014 whether political, social or psychological \u2014 should be addressed by people who use these platforms, by government regulation and by the social-media companies themselves. The American Psychological Association has a range of suggestions for how users can tackle the detrimental effects of social media, including establishing so-called guardrails such as limiting the amount time spent online, turning off notifications for apps, not bringing phones to the dinner table, restaurant or, indeed, to bed.<\/p>\n Another approach could be to assign credibility scores to individual accounts based on a mix of data related to the quality of their output, van der Linden said. \u201cInstall reputational incentives so people don\u2019t put out total nonsense, and have more user-driven input,\u201d he said. \u201cA click assumes you want more of something, but people are engaging with content they don\u2019t want. Instead, ask people what kind of content they want.\u201d He also favors \u201cpre-emptive resilience,\u201d an approach in which platforms forewarn users about misleading content related to politics or climate change.<\/p>\n
\n META,
\n
\n unleashed its new Twitteresque platform this week, enabling Instagram users to import their handle and their followers. Instagram has over 2.35 billion active monthly users, and some 30 million people signed up on the microblogging site\u2019s first day, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. He said Threads will be a \u201cfriendly\u201d rival to Twitter, the platform purchased by Elon Musk last year. One of Threads\u2019 own policies is not so friendly, however: If you delete Threads, your Instagram account will also be deleted, along with all those memories you\u2019ve stored up over the years. <\/p>\n