If Threads is going to compete seriously for X (Twitter), then it needs to pay more attention to trending topics and allow people to participate more seamlessly in real-time conversation around big events.

This is one of the major criticisms of how threads have been used, as most of the Threads use still makes reference to X for the latest updates on sports, world events, celebrity content, etc.

Threads also doesn't have a view for Trending Topics, and it only recently started testing topic tags in some countries. And you can't also sort search results within the app in chronological order - which, together, makes it really tough to follow trending news stories as they develop in-stream.

And over the weekend, Instagram head Adam Mosseri provided a little more detail on why the Threads team isn't too hot to enable this, at least as we know it, just yet.
It's been some time since this post was made, but as Mosseri and other folks were continuing to mull over this, he decided to explain, elaborating:

"To be clear, having all posts containing a word on a list in chronological order means that spammers and other bad actors pound the view full of content simply by adding the relevant words or tags."

Which is a more general problem on X, where spammers simply append popular hashtags to their spam posts, so that a lot of their content gets in front of more people in popular streams. Which is also why Threads is limiting the use of topic tags to one per post at this stage as a way to limit the ability for this to be used as a spam vector, and flood key conversation surfaces with junk.

Some implications of how Threads might look to limit the abuse, Mosseri observes, relate to minimizing more spam content posted on the trending results. Well, that's not easy either.

"To avoid getting overrun with bad actors and bots, search products need some ranking. You can show results in chronological order, but you then need to omit bad content that doesn't quite cross the line and qualify to get taken down."

There also are a lot of posts that most people would say are junk, which also don't cross that line, making it tough to give discovery more real-time focus without being a bit unfair about restricting those, says Mosseri.

Mosseri's comments underscore how the Threads team is going about changing content ranking, part of Meta's broader effort to make Threads more of a plus than Twitter ever was, X now is.

This was back in October when, in an exciting effort to make Threads the next billion-user application, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a point that:
"I've thought for a long time there should be a billion-person public conversations app that is a bit more positive. I think that if we keep at this for a few more years, then I think we have a good chance of achieving our vision there."

But in doing so, Threads is looking to do things a little differently, which will be infuriating for the kind of user who is looking for a straight-up Twitter alternative, but could, in the long run, let Meta build a healthier, more engaging real-time conversational experience.

It's hard to see it happening without real-time immediacy, and without the ability to identify what the discussion topics are at any given time in the app.

Though Mosseri did note further that the Threads team is still iterating on this and exploring the best way to facilitate real-time engagement, it just doesn't have the answers yet, though ranking posts based on different parameters is one possibility.

Could the Threads team focus on front-and-centering top stories from reputable news outlets? That too could be dicey, given Mosseri's comments previously about not wanting to overpromise reach and engagement to news outlets in the app.

The other way is that threads would also try to fit a ranking system in which every profile in the app would receive a score on the trust factor and newsworthiness based on the things that each posts frequently. Perhaps this would be a much more democratic way of filtering through relevance in search display, though it would also take time to evolve as more and more get attuned to what each user shares in the app.

Threads may also seek to appoint an editorial staff, which would then be able to keep each topic on track and make sure spammers did not reach a large audience through some hashtags. In that regard, limiting tags to one per post would help inasmuch as it would be pretty easy for an editorial staff to pull certain posts out of a topical feed. But at the same time, that would also invite criticism over platform interference and managing what trends and what doesn't in the app.

As you can see, there are no easy answers, but it's interesting that the Threads team is looking to address challenges like this as it seeks to differentiate from Twitter while staying largely the same.

And if Threads manages to do it correctly, it might be one step toward better engagement online.

It's a Herculean job, and if anyone has the insight and data to make it happen, it's Meta.