Featured Post from Tulane University

Is Threads the new Twitter or will it unravel? Social media expert weighs in

Jul 12, 2023

4 min

Alex Turvy

Threads, a new social media platform from Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta company, launched this month as a direct challenge to Twitter. While Elon Musk’s rocky tenure as Twitter CEO has some wondering if the end is nigh for the company, it remains to be seen if Meta’s Twitter competitor is enough to capture the energy — and audience — of a platform made famous for the ability to instantly share thoughts with anyone in the world. Alex Turvy, who is working on his doctorate in sociology while researching social media culture and memes at Tulane University, speaks about Threads’ blockbuster launch and what to expect.


Threads is here. What are we seeing so far?


Alex Turvy: The uptake has been extremely fast. I think it’s a bit misleading that some folks are talking about it being the fastest growing social media of all time. Really what’s happening is they’re mapping onto Instagram and Meta’s existing social graph since they obviously have a massive audience they can plug into. It’s not nothing, but it’s not organic growth and it raises questions about longevity and actual uptake. One of the big features they’re pitching is they’ve promised to make this a decentralized service, meaning a Threads account could talk to a Mastodon account. That’s a big deal, but crucially, it could also take their followers elsewhere.



Why did this happen now?


AT: Nobody thought it was going to come this soon, most likely including Meta. But I think they saw their window when Elon started rate-limiting posts. So I think what happened is Meta decided to send this mostly fully-baked app out the door.


In addition to studying social media culture, you’re an expert on Internet memes. Were there any that stood out from the Threads rollout?


AT: Mark Zuckerberg famously hadn’t tweeted in a decade, and he tweeted out the Spiderman meme with two Spidermans pointing at each other. No text. Everybody got it.


It's still early, but if Instagram is for memes and photos and Twitter is for corporate and personal brands, what’s the vibe of Threads? Have people assigned it a “personality” yet?


AT: I’ve seen a lot of anxiety about that. People asking what version of themselves should they be on Threads. Should they be their weird, jaded Twitter self or post normal family stuff? Is this a place to post intrusive thoughts like people do on Twitter? It’s going to be interesting to see people sort that out.


Threads is an attempt to create a new Twitter borne from the company behind Facebook. Where do you see it landing between those two ends of the spectrum?


AT: With Twitter, there was always the possibility you could talk to celebrities or prominent journalists. That was the power of it for a long time, and the cultural importance was massive. Facebook has been the opposite, like a Craigslist but slightly prettier. And the algorithm on Facebook is so strange. Last month, the fourth-most engaged photo on Facebook was just a picture of a potato with everyone commenting the same thing. So I wonder if Threads will wind up in a similar place as Facebook where people have millions of followers and tons of eyeballs but very little cultural significance.


Twitter v. Threads has seemingly also morphed into Musk v. Zuckerberg. Despite billionaires losing favor with the general public from a political standpoint, it seems it seems public sentiment has been more positive toward Zuckerberg. What have you seen?


AT: It certainly seems like there’s a perception that Threads is more noble somehow. It’s definitely reactionary, because people are pretty fed up with the whole ethos of Twitter. But you’re just going from one guy to another. If you don’t like capitalist billionaires, there’s no winner here. On the other hand, if Threads actually decentralizes their platform and lets Threads users communicate between other platforms like Mastodon or Blue Sky, that’s not nothing. That does give a ton of power to the user, and no other social media platform has done that before.


Where does Threads fit into the history of new social media platforms? Are there any analogs?


AT: The history of the internet is full of forgotten apps and services. They tried to resurrect MySpace and that didn’t work. They tried to bring back Vine but things had moved on. When you try to resurrect things that were huge culturally, sometimes the culture has moved on, and I wonder if that’s where we’re at with Twitter and if Threads is another example of trying to take an audience from something that’s dying.


Twitter began with a mentality that you could rub elbows with celebrities on the same platform and, with enough work, climb a viral ladder to a similar type of online acclaim. As Twitter loses public appeal, is the answer a new Twitter?


AT: My gut says no. This is a huge uptake that feels inorganic and I’m real curious to see what it looks like in six months. They’ve thrown a lot of money and energy into it, but it feels like trying to capture something that has passed. A thing doesn’t take off because of its features. It has to provide value to people, and it needs an organic network culture or identity that bubbles up from the bottom. It’s searching for that now, and I think that’s what will make it successful or not. Does it offer something culturally that the others don’t?


Perhaps the most important question: Have you joined Threads?


AT: I joined. I haven’t actually written anything. Right now, I’m just poking around.


For media interviews, please contact Tulane assistant director of media relations Andrew Yawn at ayawn@tulane.edu.

Connect with:
Alex Turvy

Alex Turvy

Doctoral student | Department of Sociology

Alex Turvy is an expert on social media culture and memes working to study how the Internet shapes the entirety of our social relationships.

Twitter & Social Media StrategiesInstagramMemesSocial MediaTik Tok

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Tulane University

2 min

Expert: TikTok lawsuit may spur new battleground over kids’ privacy

The Biden administration's lawsuit against TikTok for violating children's privacy rights isn't just another tech spat—it's a potential game-changer in protecting children online. The landmark case accusing TikTok of gathering personal information from users under the age of 13 without their parent’s permission could spark a global reckoning on kids' online safety. According to Tulane University tech ethics and legal expert Muira McCammon, the case is a bellwether for the future of children’s digital rights and whether the U.S. will strengthen lax data laws to make Big Tech accountable for any potential harm against younger users. “This TikTok lawsuit isn't just about one company's missteps—it's a watershed moment for children's digital rights. It signals that even tech giants aren't above the law when it comes to protecting minors online. The outcome could redefine how social media platforms handle young users' data globally, setting new standards for digital responsibility in an age of constant connectivity.” McCammon can discuss: • The vulnerability of U.S. data privacy laws, emphasizing the need for stronger regulations to protect young Americans online. • How the proposed Kids Online Safety Act, passed by the Senate, will strengthen reporting mechanisms and push social media platforms to disclose how they use minors' data. This new transparency alone may not drive real change in corporate practices. • How the legal battle between TikTok and the government underscores the ongoing power struggle between children seeking online freedom and parents striving to shield them from the perils of constant connectivity and targeted advertising. • How the case may trigger investigations into data handling practices at other companies and incentivize platforms to prioritize children's safety to maintain their user base, particularly among younger demographics. McCammon is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University School of Liberal Arts. Contact Roger Dunaway, assistant director of media relations, for interviews at roger@tulane.edu.

2 min

National survey finds gender and partisan divides in perceptions of women's leadership abilities

A national survey from the Newcomb Institute at Tulane University has found that significant gender and partisan divides persist in perceptions of women's leadership abilities. While the majority of Americans do not believe men make better political leaders than women, there are stark differences in attitudes based on the gender and political ideology of respondents, according to the Institute’s forthcoming #MeToo Harassment Study 2024, which polled more than 3,000 U.S. adults earlier this year. The survey, conducted in partnership with the University of California at San Diego and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, included questions related to domestic violence, sexual harassment and abuse in the past 12 months. It also asked participants how much they agree or disagree with the following statement: “On the whole, men make better political leaders than women do.” This item is used by the World Values Survey to assess this belief in other country contexts. Key findings include: • Only 12% of U.S. adults agree that men make better political leaders than women, far lower than the global average of 50%. • Men are more likely than women to believe that men make better political leaders than women do – 16% of men compared to 10% of women hold this belief. • There is a clear partisan divide, with 26% of very conservative respondents agreeing compared to only 5% of very liberal respondents. • Disagreement with the notion that men make better leaders is highest in progressive states like California, which has relatively higher representation of women in elected office, and lowest in more conservative states like Mississippi. "These findings are concerning, as persistent biases against women's leadership abilities can impede progress in achieving gender parity in political representation," said Anita Raj, executive director of the Newcomb Institute and professor of global public health at Tulane. Raj said gender inequality in political representation matters because elected female officials are more likely than their male counterparts to introduce and enact bills, and they are more likely to build legislation on key areas affecting women and families, such as childcare, healthcare, paid family leave and sexual harassment in the workplace. The full report, which will be released in September, will dive into experiences of sexual harassment in public and private spaces, including the workplace.

3 min

Rising sea temperatures are pushing Great Barrier Reef to brink

Rising sea temperatures are causing increasing signs of stress and threatening the existence of one of the world's most diverse and valuable marine ecosystems, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, according to a new international study from a team of researchers that includes Tulane University coral reef expert Thomas DeCarlo. The assistant professor of oceanography at Tulane School of Science and Engineering analyzed historical temperature and bleaching patterns at the reef site using underwater drilling to collect coral core samples and CT scans to identify density variations and annual growth bands visible from when coral previously bleached and recovered. DeCarlo’s work, published this month in Nature, documents unprecedented levels of ocean heat leading to bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, endangering a vital marine ecosystem. How is climate change threatening coral reefs across the globe? Corals are animals that live in symbiosis with photosynthetic algae inside their cells. These algae provide most of the energy corals need to survive. When water temperatures are abnormally warm, this symbiosis breaks down. The coral expels the algae, which is called bleaching. The coral turns white as you see the skeleton through the translucent tissues. While bleached corals are still alive, they begin to starve without their symbionts and may die if conditions don't improve quickly. What makes the Great Barrier Reef so unique — and how does it illustrate the urgency of rising sea temperatures? The Great Barrier Reef is the longest continuous reef in the world, near the center of reef biodiversity, with hundreds of coral species. It's a World Heritage Site and an icon for Australia. Key findings observed there include: - The high-temperature events of the past two to three decades are exceptional and unprecedented in the past four centuries. - There's strong statistical confidence that the highest temperature events causing devastating mass coral bleaching in the past decade have no parallel in at least the last 400 years. - We found some evidence of coral bleaching in the late 1800s, which wasn't previously known. - The frequency of mass bleaching has dramatically increased. From 1877 to 1982, there was almost a century between bleaching events. Since 1982, there have been seven mass coral bleaching events, occurring almost every other year recently. - The severity of bleaching has likely increased, and the short time between events doesn't allow for reef recovery. Why are coral reefs so important? Hundreds of millions of people depend on coral reefs for food, economic reasons and livelihood. Reefs also provide tourism revenue, as well as spiritual and aesthetic value. Ecologically, reefs protect shorelines by breaking waves and reducing erosion. As we lose live corals, reefs become flatter and less effective at breaking waves. Reef degradation also leads to loss of biodiversity, as many species depend on specific coral habitats. This impacts fisheries potential and has widespread effects on society and people around the world. How can we protect coral reefs from further damage? The primary action needed is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate models show that the warming trend since the late 1800s is due to human activities. These models can simulate natural climate variability and demonstrate that the temperature events of the past two decades on the Great Barrier Reef would have been impossible without human CO2 emissions. The first step is to acknowledge that a problem exists. Unfortunately, there's still controversy around labeling the Great Barrier Reef as "in danger," despite clear scientific evidence of its deterioration and continued exposure to heat extremes. We need to agree on the danger the reef is in before we can make the hard choices necessary to reduce the speed of climate change. For more on DeCarlo’s work, visit The Sclero Lab at Tulane University. To schedule an interview, contact Stacey Plaisance with Tulane media relations, splaisance@tulane.edu or 504-247-1420.

View all posts
Powered by