For HN posts in the last week Twitter leads Threads 106-2. Not necessarily a representative sample her, but lopsided enough to make me very skeptical of the claim that Threads has more active users.
It's like saying you don't see any Instagram posts on HN, so Instagram must be tiny. Its more likely the subcommunities that post on Threads don't have overlap with HN.
I've tried threads. Moderately engaging. Took nothing from it. Twitter has a HN like quality where there's a lot that's unimportant and occasionally you see something you'd see nowhere else.
They way I would describe Threads is TikTok but with text. Actual people posting things are surfaced on my default feed, not corporations or engagement chasing influencers.
One of the more pleasing things about threads is that the "for you" page doesn't appear to push stuff that is rage bait _for you_, (what ever your bias is)
There seems to be a weighting in favour of stuff that isn't angry. There is stuff, but it seems to ask for actual confirmation that you want to continue to see it.
Its not all roses though, they are busy fucking up notifications like they did on facebook.
This is a weird metric to determine informational accuracy, as you're talking about a specific use case (reposting content on a 3rd-party platform), you're not accounting for user selection (is the average HN dude more likely to use X or Threads as their primary mico-blogging?) and it doesn't account for the fact that the entire FB/Threads/Instagram ecosystem feeds into itself (I'm never stumbling across X content that I want to engage with because that's now how I use the internet, but I'm constantly clicking something on IG that prompts me to give in and sign up for Threads)
Anything X says at any point about itself is likely to make me very skeptical because I think it's a dogshit site run by a bald, nepotic loser capitalist, that says nothing about the quality of the reporting or how accurate it is though.