Brian Moller is a self-described “master threader.”
Since Meta debuted Instagram Threads a day after the July 4 holiday, the radio personality and comedian, whose stage name is B Mo the Prince, has been cracking jokes and playfully bantering with other early adopters of the Twitter clone. In the past week, he’s made several quips about his new Threads compulsion taking precedence over certain life necessities, like sleep.
Moller has spent the last few years building an expansive presence on social media sites like TikTok, Instagram and YouTube as a creator of short comedy sketches, making fun of Gen Z and millennials and how they perceive one another. He now has roughly 3 million followers across social media and online video platforms.
The one major app that’s eluded him: Twitter.
“The vibe was off,” Moller said, regarding the reception to his jokes and posts about comedy sketches on Twitter. “It’s not really the platform for that.”
Power Instagram users like Moller are a big reason why Threads raced to the top of the downloads charts to become one of the fastest-growing consumer apps ever, topping 100 million users in its first week. With Twitter sputtering due to technical glitches and Elon Musk’s erratic behavior turning away many former loyalists, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg pounced on the opportunity to kick a rival while it was down.
The hard part is keeping users.
Threads skyrocketed out of the gate in large part because it was easy for existing Instagram users to create accounts on the new messaging service and connect with their established following. But the app is already showing signs of waning momentum, with online analytics firms Sensor Tower and Similarweb reporting a drop in engagement.
Moller is exploring how Threads could become a central service to his online existence and a potential avenue for reaching a bigger audience. He’s hoping that Threads has staying power and that people will continue to open the app throughout the day to engage with his jokes and other forms of entertainment.
Earlier this week, Meta rolled out its first big update to Threads, adding features that make it easier to see followers and a translate button so users can read text in other languages.
Still, Threads lacks key enhancements that could help creators build their audiences on the app beyond their existing Instagram following, said Caspar Lee, whose YouTube channel has more than 6.6 million subscribers. There’s not even a website for users to access via desktop.
“Threads is the really good looking new kid in class that everyone wants to talk to,” said Lee, who also has a venture firm and is co-founder of marketing firm Influencer. “Then over the next few weeks they got to work out whether there’s anything more to them.”
Currently, Threads users are unable to search for topics or hashtags that represent hot topics. The feed is algorithmic, based on who a user follows and content recommended by Instagram. There’s a feel of randomness and unorganized chaos to it. You’re not really part of a conversation.
“That’s a big thing that’s on Twitter, that’s on TikTok and YouTube, that you can jump on a topic, trend and you can get loads of people following you and consuming your content,” Lee said. “It’s going to be interesting to see if people can go from the initial boost they had in the first few days to a continuous growth in the next few months.”
The nicer Twitter
Instagram executives have started by positioning Threads as a kinder alternative to Twitter, discouraging chatter about news and politics and focusing more on entertainment and lifestyle content. Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, said Threads can cater to people interested in topics like fashion, sports, music and beauty who have never found like-minded communities on Twitter.
Conflict is a major draw on Twitter, which is often used by high-profile politicians to tout their views and slam those of their rivals.
Lee even created a popular YouTube video five years ago in which he read “mean tweets” with comedian Jack Whitehall. The video has been viewed more than 1 million times.
Moller said he finds Threads to be more welcoming than Twitter and enjoys being able to scroll through and post without having to engage in real-time arguments. One of the few things he does on Twitter is read about sports. Even then, comments can be “so argumentative” that they’re off-putting, he said, adding that the combative nature of discussions has only increased since Musk acquired the company late last year.
Threads, at least so far, “doesn’t have the same vitriol,” he said.
Thilina Kaluthotage | Nurphoto | Getty Images
Marcel Floruss, a fashion influencer with over 580,000 Instagram followers and more than 1 million YouTube subscribers, says it was a “smart move” for Meta to try capturing disillusioned Twitter users as well as people who have have deserted the app.
However, he’s still trying to understand how Threads can help him. Floruss built an influencer career by giving fashion advice and tips, and he never found a way to “offer any value on Twitter,” which he says is more for news, live events and politics.
On Stories, Instagram’s time-limited messaging tool that’s akin to Snapchat, Floruss can share tips along with photos. He also creates content for TikTok, Instagram’s short-video service Reels, Snapchat and YouTube. Floruss said he’s going to “play around” with Threads, but he’s not ready to make it a priority given how much time he spends elsewhere.
“The potential benefit is outweighed by the amount of work that I feel like I need to put in,” he said.
Floruss isn’t alone in taking a wait-and-see approach.
Chas Lacaillade, CEO of influencer talent agency Bottle Rocket Management, said many of his creator clients are holding off with Threads until the app shows it can be a place that can bolster their careers.
“They aren’t looking to go zero to 100 miles on this other thing,” Lacaillade said. “It’s so important not to discredit what you got in search of something that is unproven or is the flavor of the month.”
Creators, Lacaillade said, would rather spend their time deepening existing relationships instead of working on a new social media service that could quickly lose steam.
Threads “had this really splashy entrance,” Lacaillade said. The true test, he said, will be Meta’s ability to find sustained momentum.
As it stands now, creators don’t have a way to monetize their presence on Threads. There’s no advertising, so brands aren’t looking for influencer partners, and it’s not clear if Threads can turn into a channel to help them steer people to sites where they can sell merchandise or promote their Patreon pages, he said.
A Meta spokesperson said in an email that the company’s priority “is to build consumer value first and foremost” in order “to explore how to build business value in a way that doesn’t compromise the consumer experience.”
The spokesperson also pointed to Mosseri’s previous public statements describing how Instagram “has been entirely focused on keeping the lights on and fixing bugs, but we’re starting to priorite the obvious missing features, like a following feed, the edit button, and post search.”
‘Starving for regular monetization’
Creators say YouTube remains the No. 1 outlet for influencers to build lasting careers.
“What other platform outside of YouTube has the ability to keep you or any viewer interested for longer than 30 seconds?” Floruss said. “You have the attention of people that’s worth a lot of money to advertisers.”
While Twitter struggles with advertisers, the site is trying to gain relevance among creators. The company recently began paying some verified users when ads are served in their conversations. That could entice some people to use Twitter over Threads, said Tameka Bazile, who works in artist relations and marketing at Time.
Bazile noted that some Twitter users have posted that they’ve received payments as high as $35,000, and she said that could be an attractive way to draw in “micro-influencers” or “nano-influencers,” who lack big audiences but have established some name recognition in certain communities.
“The creator economy is starving for regular monetization,” she said.
Twitter hasn’t revealed some important details of how it’s paying certain creators like the percentage revenue share they’re getting from ads, industry experts said.
Brendan Gahan, a partner and chief social officer at ad agency Mekanism, said Twitter’s system needs some transparency.
“It feels like right now Twitter has just granted a bunch of random accounts,” Gahan said.
Twitter didn’t provide a comment for this story.
Sasha Kaletsky, co-founder and managing partner of Creator Ventures, said in an email that it’s “almost impossible” for Twitter’s recent influencer payment plans to compete with brand deals from Instagram or YouTube.
Like with Threads, creators will wait to see how Twitter works for their peers before “spending much more time making content there,” Kaletsky said.
Marketing influencer Jack Appleby said his income is derived from a mix of brand sponsorships on platforms like Twitter and LinkedIn and his own newsletter as well as from speaking engagements.
For Threads to become important to creators, Appleby said the app needs to have better analytics so they can measure engagement and prove to brands that they have reach.
Appleby likes how Threads allows for posts to be up to 500 characters, which he said lets him write more complete thoughts. Tweets max out at 280 characters, except for paying subscribers, who can write messages with up to 25,000 characters. Appleby said he definitely doesn’t need that much space.
“My hope is that Threads allows us to like be a little more human,” he said.
As for Moller, the comedian, he’s hoping Threads continues to feel playful and fun. With time and some clever features, perhaps the engagement will be strong enough that it can help his entertainment career.
“This came along, and I was like, I’m sure Zuckerberg is not putting out something half-assed,” he said.
Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX.
Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.
Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit.
“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.
To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.
Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform.
The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much.
The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms.
“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.
“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”
It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.
Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively.
X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.
Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.
Artificial intelligence training
X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.
“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.
Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually.
X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.
“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.
Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different.
The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center.
Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.
Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training.
“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.
Liquidated damages
Another unusual aspect of X’s new terms is its “liquidated damages” clause. The terms state that if users request, view or access more than 1 million posts – including replies, videos, images and others – in any 24-hour period they are liable for damages of $15,000.
While most individual users won’t easily approach that threshold, the clause is concerning for some, including digital researchers. They rely on the analysis of larger numbers of public posts from services like X to do their work.
X’s new terms of service are a “disturbing move that the company should reverse,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in an October statement.
“The public relies on journalists and researchers to understand whether and how the platforms are shaping public discourse, affecting our elections, and warping our relationships,” Abdo wrote. “One effect of X Corp.’s new terms of service will be to stifle that research when we need it most.”
Neither Threads nor Bluesky have anything similar to X’s liquidated damages clause.
Meta and X did not respond to requests for comment.
A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”
The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.
“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.
The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.
Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.
Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.
Concern with Congress and a changing White House
The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.
As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.
Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.
Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.
Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military
John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.
Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.
In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.
Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.
Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.
Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.
Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.
“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.
He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.
Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.