Threads’ DMs update draws mixed reactions from users

Threads finally adds dms, but not everyone is happy

Threads introduced direct messaging, hyped as the platform’s “most requested feature.” However, instead of universal applause, the launch triggered a wave of backlash.

Many users, especially women, say they enjoyed Threads precisely because it didn’t have DMs. Now, they feel blindsided by the sudden shift and frustrated that there’s no way to entirely opt out of private messages.

The rollout feels like Meta ignored their core user base’s desire for a more public-only platform.

A privacy feature gone missing

One of the biggest complaints is the lack of a simple off switch. Unlike some platforms that let you turn off DMs or restrict them to a tight circle, Threads only enables you to unfollow or block users.

Critics argue this is reactive rather than preventive since it requires extra management steps. The absence of a basic toggle shows how little Meta thought about everyday privacy and user autonomy in design.

Women sound the alarm on harassment

Women have been especially vocal about how DMs could open the floodgates to harassment. Under Instagram head Adam Mosseri’s announcement post, one user summed it up bluntly: “Congrats on adding a feature only stalkers were interested in.”

For many, private messaging feels like an invitation to unwanted advances. They want Meta to recognize that the threat isn’t theoretical; online harassment disproportionately targets women on nearly every platform.

Threads was praised for public-only interactions

When Threads launched, many people were relieved it didn’t have DMs. Unlike X or Instagram, it felt like a cleaner, simpler space for public posts without the burden of monitoring an inbox.

Some say the platform’s appeal was its focus on visibility without private backchannels that could easily be misused. Adding DMs flips that dynamic entirely and risks making it indistinguishable from every other mainstream network.

Adam Mosseri faces the heat

Mosseri’s announcement was met with hundreds of frustrated replies and demands for an opt-out. Many referenced polls showed that most Threads users preferred no DMs, while others questioned why Meta would ignore that input.

For a feature Meta claims was highly requested, it’s telling that so many early adopters feel disregarded and alienated by a move that seems to undermine the original vision of the platform.

The opt-out dilemma

Currently, there is no option to switch DMs off entirely. If you want to stop someone from messaging you, you have to unfollow or block them, which can feel extreme or awkward in many situations.

Critics argue that following someone for their public content doesn’t mean you welcome them into your private inbox. The lack of nuance leaves people feeling like Meta overlooked basic respect for personal boundaries.

Spam and bots, An old problem returns

It’s not just harassment that people are worried about. Spam and bots are a recurring nightmare anywhere DMs exist. Many users fear that, over time, Threads DMs will become another inbox crowded with scam links, phishing attempts, and bots promoting shady offers.

Since the platform doesn’t yet have robust filtering or a dedicated message requests folder, it risks repeating the same mistakes that plague Instagram and Facebook messaging today.

Meta’s defense, “you asked for It”

Meta claims DMs were its most requested feature; however, some critics argue the company emphasized raw engagement metrics, ignoring community backlash.

The backlash illustrates the risks of adding significant features after a community has established norms. Many feel Meta optimized for growth instead of listening to the real preferences of the most active Threads users.

No images, no voice notes yet

Ironically, the feature isn’t even fully fleshed out. You can’t send images, voice notes, or rich media in Threads DMs; you can only send text messages and shared posts.

While more robust tools are reportedly in development, the rollout feels half-baked. Launching it without basics like media sharing or advanced moderation tools for a controversial feature seems to confirm that the priority was speed over quality.

What if you want more control?

Right now, your options are limited. You can unfollow or block someone to revoke their access, but there’s no toggle to turn off DMs completely. This gap underscores why privacy advocates have been so frustrated.

Many users feel a platform should let them proactively set their comfort level rather than forcing them to constantly monitor interactions and take defensive measures after harassment or spam happens.

The culture shock factor

Introducing DMs changes the culture of Threads in ways Meta may not have anticipated. What began as a space for public dialogue now has a private backchannel, creating dynamics many users never signed up for.

Some feel the platform is drifting away from its original promise of simplicity and openness. The addition of DMs establishes a tension between Threads’ founding identity and the reality of mainstream social networks.

Limited integration with Instagram

Threads DMs aren’t entirely independent either. If you follow someone on Instagram but not Threads, they can still message you. This hybrid approach confuses many users who want a clean separation between their apps.

It also raises concerns about cross-platform spam and blurred boundaries. This integration feels like an unwelcome compromise for people who use Threads precisely to escape Instagram’s clutter.

Meta’s promise of future controls

Meta has confirmed that more granular controls are coming. Planned features include message requests folders, better spam filtering, group messaging, and more customizable permissions for who can contact you.

But for now, none of these improvements exist. Critics argue the company should have delayed launching DMs until those protections were available, especially since the potential for misuse was obvious.

A work in progress, but at what cost?

It’s clear Threads DMs are far from finished. Meta plans to iterate quickly, but the backlash shows the cost of releasing incomplete features without privacy safeguards.

For a platform with strong early momentum, this controversy risks slowing growth and driving people back to rivals offering clearer ways to control private interactions. Trust, once lost, is hard to rebuild.

The growing pains of a young platform

Threads is still less than a year old, and this episode underscores the tension between scaling fast and protecting user experience. As more people join, Meta will have to balance new features with respect for community norms.

The DM rollout is a reminder that launching something just because competitors have it isn’t always the right call, especially when your brand is built on simplicity.

Speaking of surprises, did you hear about the Instagram glitch that had everyone buzzing? Check it out here.

What happens next?

For now, the ball is in Meta’s court. If the company wants Threads to thrive, it must act fast to deliver promised controls, clear opt-out options, and better spam protections.

Whether you love or hate DMs, this moment will define Threads’ future. Meta’s next steps will show whether it truly values user trust or is determined to mold every platform into the same shape.

Wondering what else Meta has up its sleeve? Get the latest on a possible Instagram iPad app here.

What do you think about the new Threads feature Meta just rolled out? Why do users have mixed reactions to it? Please share your thoughts and drop a comment.

Read More From This Brand:

• Instagram Cracks Down On Underage Users
• Instagram Upgrades Search to Rival TikTok
• Say Goodbye to Reels on Instagram

Don’t forget to follow us for more exclusive content on MSN.

If you liked this story, you’ll LOVE our FREE emails. Join today and be the first to get stories like this one.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.