Your friend drops a throwaway reply on Threads and it racks up thousands of views. Looks fake, right? It isn’t bots - it’s a buffet with too many eaters and not enough cooks.
My AI research agent pulled the raw data on this, and the pattern is boring but real. Meta plugged Threads straight into Instagram’s social graph. That means your words ride on top of existing follow networks in the US like a free subway transfer. Meta says over 150 million people use it monthly - take that with salt - but you can feel the feed move. There’s more demand for fresh text than there is supply, so the algorithm shoves even simple replies into a lot of eyeballs.
Are they juicing numbers? They don’t need to. The platform counts “views” like most social apps do - an impression when someone scrolls past. It’s generous. And Threads is still young, so the feed is thirsty. Early movers look huge because the room is big and the mic is loud.
How do you actually get popular on Threads? Act like you’re texting a group chat, not presenting a deck. Short takes. Quick replies to bigger accounts in your lane. Ask crisp questions. Post thoughts first, links later - links get less love. Borrow your Instagram audience if you have one. You don’t need a studio - you need timing. Hit trending conversations early, 2-4 posts a day, then talk in the comments more than you post on the feed. Think bar banter, not billboard.
What’s the catch? Views are cheap, intent is soft. You’ll see big impressions and slow conversions. Great for top-of-funnel brand and community, meh for hard B2B lead gen. The vibe is cleaner than Twitter, but it’s still rented land - the algorithm can flip and your reach can evaporate. Also, Threads rewards conversation, not homework, so deep niche content may feel like shouting into a pillow.
My take - Threads is real, but it’s cotton candy. Sweet, fast, and melts quick. Use it if you want reach, feedback, and lightweight community. Don’t build your whole business on it.
What are you seeing - real conversations or drive-by views? 🧵🤔