Instagram head Adam Mosseri reiterates Threads' position on hard news, saying that Threads does not intend to “amplify” news because it's currently “too risky”
Mosseri had already framed Threads as a risky standalone bet and said the service would not encourage politics or hard news. Reporting also indicated that its feed drew on an Instagram-style ranking approach that favored creators and friends over news sources.
The position sits uneasily with Threads’ broader ambition to host public conversation: later API planning acknowledged that easier publisher access could tilt the mix toward publisher content rather than creators.
First-order effects
Threads signals that hard-news posts should not expect proactive distribution through its recommendation systems, limiting the platform’s immediate utility as a news-discovery channel for publishers and reporters.
The product’s ranking priorities remain aligned with the creator-and-friends-focused feed approach reported at launch, rather than a direct contest for news attention.
Second-order effects
Publishers considering Threads must treat it more as an audience-maintenance and direct-following channel than as a reliably amplified distribution outlet.
If this posture persists, platforms seeking broad public conversation may increasingly separate conversational reach from news distribution, treating news amplification as a moderation and product-risk decision rather than a default feature.
That would leave news organizations more dependent on channels willing to absorb the operational and scrutiny costs of elevating breaking, political, and hard-news content.
The trend: Threads is part of a broader shift in which social platforms pursue public conversation while tightly controlling whether news becomes a recommendation-driven growth category.
This is actually a reasonable take. The idea that there is going to be one news platform to rule them all, and magical algorithmic feeds that know to only boost “good” things, is a fantasy. If you want to see news, you can go visit news sites right now. …
A lot of the conversations we've had about finding a middle ground between having a sanitized/lobotomized public square (Threads) and a snuff-film propaganda server (X) is really about trying to reconstitute the principles of journalistic judgment as digital protocol, except some…
The more specific question is whether Meta will ban journalism on Threads alongside their other platforms if Congress passes JCPA or if California passes CJPA. There's a difference between not actively promoting journalism versus potentially actively suppressing it in the future…
This exactly. We've been through the pivot to live video, the pivot to 20-minute videos, the pivot to “discover,” etc etc. Amplification of our stories (and “brands") is essential but we cannot bet the farm on these platforms.
I am begging my peers in the media to stop asking for anything from the people who made the entire media industry pivot to video. Hold them to their promises around federation and build better interoperable news products that actually compete! It will be better for everyone!
🧵 It's becoming quite comical the number of times @mosseri has to say this about news, and how each time journos hear it as “Meta doesn't want news on Threads”. Personally speaking, I'm exhausted from this narrative that only pushes users further away from a platform with a lot …
Amplification is the core function of a platform defined by algorithms. How they do it, is their prerogative. Whether it is news, misinformation, ads, photos — amplification of those are strategic business decisions. And weirdly, I can see why Adam and his team are taking this…
Hi @mosseri: I understand you don't want overpromise and under-deliver. If you want journalists like me to use this platform as the primary place to post our reporting, you could have an algorithm that prioritizes posts with links alongside text-heavy commentary posts. …
I don't think we're clamoring for Threads — a Meta product — to “amplify news.” The conversations I'm witnessing is that post-Twitter, people are looking for a place where news from multiple trusted sources is easily accessible real-time, especially breaking news. Threads is ju…
The sides in this debate aren't speaking the same language. Meta's strategy for Threads is (somewhat extreme) risk aversion in opposition to Twitter's (very extreme and self-destructive) lust for risk. However, fundamentally: if you have moderation, you have curative interventi…
But this is false. Threads is absolutely getting in the way of news because you are arbitrarily choosing to restrict search results on important news and health words like Covid and vaccines. Please fix this!
Thanks for elaborating. Just to be clear, what genres of content does Threads intend to amplify, and what will that look like? And why is news - original reporting, discussion of current events, real-world issues - uniquely ineligible in comparison?
It is notable how many times Adam has to say this, and how many journalists seem to hear it as “Meta doesn't want news on Threads” And also worth asking whether a firehose of real-time posts about news (with all the abuse and distortion that comes with that) is unambiguously a go…
@threads @mosseri Read the room. I love you. You're doing a great job so far. Keep releasing amazing features at an incredible cadence to your millions of active users. This was the most seamless product launch I've witnessed in some time. I love the diversity of content and…
FWIW, I don't take issue with this approach as much as others. I don't really want a “news” app, and I'm not even sure I understand what a “news” app is. As a journalist, I want an app where I can (1) share links, ideas, and reportage with curious readers, (2) follow and chat w…
We're not anti-news. News is clearly already on Threads. People can share news; people can follow accounts that share news. We're not going to get in the way of any either. But, we're also not going go to amplify news on the platform. To do so would be too risky given the ma…
Israel-Palestine news has brought lots of people on this app in recent days — it undeniably feels like a different place. I want to know how this squares with what @mosseri has said about how Meta won't encourage “hard news” on Threads https://www.theverge.com/...
I'm calling BS long term here. There is no way they will build habitual and long term behavior without embracing live, current events and news. They know this. They're using Threads as part of their public policy strategy to scare news distribution and not overpromise on product.