Facebook launches its TikTok rival, Instagram Reels
axios.com
axios.com
" Instagram is some strange hybrid mix of social and interest graph, and now it’s also a jumble of formats, with a Stories feed relegated to a top bar in the app while the more stagnant and less active original feed continues to run vertically as the default. Messaging is pushed to a separate pane and also served by a separate app. Longer form videos bounce you to Instagram TV, which is just an app for videos that exceed some time limit, I guess? And soon, perhaps commerce will be jammed in somehow? Meanwhile, they have a Discover tab, or whatever it is called, which seems like it could be the default tab if they wanted to take a more interest-based approach like TikTok. But they seem to have punted on making any hard decisions for so long now that the app is just a Frankenstein of feeds and formats and functions spread across a somewhat confused constellation of apps. "
Let's see if they're forced to make any "hard decisions" about their bundled UX in future...
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24049676
[1] https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2020/8/3/tiktok-and-the-sorti...
I feel foolish for not having realized that the UX must make perfect sense to everyone who has used WeChat since the days of it being a simple communication app.
By that logic, I'm not sure we could say quite yet that Instagram's bundling is a mistake.
It's not easy to say no as a designer but the best companies are the ones most capable of keeping things as focused on primary UX flows as possible.
TikTok figured this out by making it all about scrolling a simple page of high-density videos, the entire screen is full of the content you want. No extra tapping or side scrolling needed.
Reddit is another company that missed the boat on what made their website great during their redesign. Making it feel top-heavy JS-wise and sparser instead of simple high-density information like newspaper site with simple links. For ex: the first article on old.reddit.com is 100px from the top and can fit 10 articles within 1000px, while the new one starts at 400px and lists 3-4 posts by 1000px (HN is 55px and 20+ posts).
On the contrary, the other big player in China is Alipay, it's pretty much trying to put everything on the first page like Kowloon Walled City - noisy, messy. It just punches everything in your face.
Interestingly, they both serve their purpose, but following different design philosophies. WeChat wants to be a good product, while the Alipay wants to be a portal for every new service around you from Alibaba.
PS: To have an initial impression on how Alipay is not only a payment app, it literally trying to directly covers everything around you, for example:
* Buy everything, or course.
* Pay for electric, gas, and water.
* Riding bikes, bus and metro. Parking, re-fuel, pay your fines.
* Loan, pay credit cards, stocks, insurance, lottery and donations. Or give your child or your spouse some pocket money on monthly basis.
* Also the 'social credit' system you might have heard of.
I think WeChat UI is superior because they organize features in a nice boxed grid.
I can ignore things that I don't care about easily.
They got everybody and their mom on it and now even with all the security, tracking and countless competitors, its nearly impossible to get people off it because of this simple fact - its where everybody they know are now.
As it stands, if I only care about the TikTok/Reels functionality, I'm going with TikTok. It doesn't come with all the extra bloat.
I guess we'll see what happens with the potential Trump ban and Microsoft acquisition though.
At a certain scale, a person doesn't make this decision... their friends make it for them.
On the topic of social, though, WeChat has private messaging and broadcasting, location sharing, a social feed of friends' updates, and public accounts that can push feeds to subscribers [1]. Mediums include text, voice, photo, video, and location, all shared through a variety of types of feeds.
What is Reels immitating here?
TikTok or Doubin, just swipe up/down would be enough for 90% of your input
When was the last time you truly cared about anything Facebook-related? A few Twitch streamers switching to their platform? The only reason anyone is streaming on Facebook right now is because they were offered multi-million contracts, or because Facebook is currently paying out "autoplay while scrolling through feeds" as view counts (ie. advertising payouts based on PPV instead of PPC/PPA); when that stops, those streamers will lose everything. Facebook has inflated its viewership numbers by cheating via a "loss leader" tactic, but with nothing else recuperating the losses, which only leads to financial collapse.
tldr; Facebook is finally coming to an end. Their executives know this better than anyone, so they're scrambling to pick up as many scraps as they can in order to delay the inevitable.
Facebook is the Microsoft Office of social networking.. at least in "coolness" factor. Folks under 25, 30ish years old, pretty much only use it because they have to, not because they want to. WhatsApp is in a similar boat amongst young folk within the United States and Canada. Instagram really is Facebook's only social network that has any kind of cachet with this demographic.
Facebook c. 2010 was too confusing for me, so I bounced off (from descriptions of what it was like a couple years before that, I think I'd have enjoyed it then).
Twitter's been too confusing for me to understand for years, I can barely follow what's going on when reading it, let alone use it (I've tried within the last couple years, and never got the hang of it). Used to be easy for me to read & use but the interface and interaction options don't make sense to me anymore.
I didn't even figure out that Instagram was supposed to primarily be a social site/service, despite repeatedly being exposed to it, until some time after the Facebook acquisition.
This of course makes it very easy to actually insert advertising in as well, because the ads look less conspicuous given the identical layout to a normal photo post (as opposed to say, Facebook, where an ad looks very different from a text status)
UI wise, Snapchat is the worst.
What I would do to solve this problem if I were at Facebook is to start new features out on an established platform (like they already do) until they reach a critical mass. Then I would completely break the feature out into its own app with separate branding. Hopefully I could get 10-20% of the active users of that feature to move to the new app and then grow it from there.
It's a very delicate process each time you do it but I think in the long run it would diversify Facebook's revenue across many independent brands and solve the feature creep problem.
After the rise of Snapchat Facebook tacked on stories to FB, IG, and WA.
Understanding these phenomena is easier when you think of it solely in terms of the bottom line.
It's an ugly, but effective strategy.
So in a way their arrogance may have hurt them in the long run.
As we all know this strategy worked great for Foursquare.
The biggest reason I left Facebook was because the platform became a jumbled mess instead of its original clean interface. It's the reason why Facebook originally won out against Myspace and why Instagram won out against Facebook.
Now they're Facebooking Instagram.
But I think Zuck knows this and buys up enough up and comers to probably stay ahead on enough things.
* MySpace, at its peak, had around 75 MM MAU.
* Facebook's core properties (Insta, WhatsApp, Messenger/Big Blue) have around 2.6 billion MAU.
Even if I just consider FB core + Messenger, Facebook is roughly 20x larger than MySpace. Facebook, as a core product, also is growing in non-US markets, even though it has saturated the US markets for years.
MySpace and Facebook just aren't comparable anymore.
A decade ago you could have everyone on it for their entire lunchbreaks, deep-stalking their mates. But nowadays people are not engaged with it compulsively.
Younger people don't use it because their parents are on it.
Content isn't made by people for Facebook because it won't show in their friends feeds.
Advertisers that are small to medium size businesses don't get a return from spending their money there, so they have left too.
Before Facebook there was the printed telephone book and the Yellow Pages. People and businesses had to be in the phone books because someone might want to contact them that way. But the Internet and email came along. Facebook is a bit like that, people are there but no more engaged than they are with a printed telephone book.
Facebook bought WhatsApp and Instagram to keep the same eyeballs. Because of that Facebook are successful.
But TikTok is the new, cool app in town. 80 million users in the US apparently, not all of them teenage girls.
The only thing I disagree with is that Facebook does make big profits from its ads, in fact it does a tough competition to google and amazon... the rest of your arguments seem correct to me... facebook doesn't feel like the home that it was before... it feels more like a newspaper, full of ads, debates, news and toxic people
Kodak didn't die when invented digital cameras, but it was a downhill ride towards inevitable cliff.
Facebook is probably the the company most able to claim to have achieved this, with facebook.com and Instagram being two big hits, arguably Messenger and WhatsApp too. TikTok is probably the biggest sign that they have actually failed to hit a 3rd generation.
Absolutely. They just reported their Q2 earnings, and Facebook has 2.7B monthly active users. When you exclude China (where they aren't allowed), people without internet or too old/young, then yes - is growth is limited, largely by size of the human population.
Even if young generations decide not to join, this will be likely most powerful network for decades.
But they sure love Instagram and WhatsApp.
I wouldn’t say Instagram is fading. Just that Tiktok is keeping the younger generation away from it. Snap is losing on both sides because of them.
Facebook (the company) will probably settle into a stable pattern like the BBC's radio lineup, where listeners roll from Radio 1, to Radio 2, to Radio 4 as they age.
Btw UI and UX need to evolve but to the point where they don't become bloated.
It already is... About a week or two ago Instagram decided to put the "Shop" or "Marketplace" button where the "Likes" tab button was... And now to get to your likes/follows/etc. you need to go to your profile tab, and find the "heart" button in the top right.
But because the "like" button has been in the same place for the past several years, it's still ingrained in my habits to press where the "Marketplace" button is, so I keep opening the store page...
I can't believe this wasn't on purpose...
The "Likes" button on the tab bar wasn't to like a post. It was to basically see the list of all interactions on your posts or new followers/requests.
There is an ever growing demand for new features, not necessarily from users, to fend off rivals and to stay relevant and exciting. As with a lot of popular apps and services, it ends up bloated, trying to offer everything to everyone and satisfying no one.
Except it didn't, the photo quality on Instagram is really bad because of compression and it is not possible to share actual good pictures because of that.
User experience doesn't seem to be a priority for Instagram.
Back in 2013-2014 it was a quite simple to use and elegant app. Then Facebook happened.
Really feels like it belongs more in the feed part than the stories part but I guess no one would watch it then.
Only watched one once and feel like that’s where I did.
Commerce is already integrated into the stories feed, not only with advertisements as you scroll through stories, but with "swipe-ups" that users can use to sell or advertise products with.
As much as this article paints a messy picture of Instagram as an app, it's still wildly popular and these issues don't seem to be hurting its popularity.
Wait, there's a separate app for IG messages? For iOS? Link? I can't find _any_ references to it.
You can add anyone to your close friends list. So add anyone you like to chat to. If you want a group to appear in Threads, add all the people in the group to threads.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/threads-from-instagram/id14738...
At the time, the story was that all these other platforms like Instagram and Snapchat were adopting short videos, so Vine could not compete anymore. But obviously it was possible to compete, since an entirely new service--Tik Tok--was able to rise against them.
That said, I do think there may be a human-oriented life cycle to these sorts of social apps. Once a social platform is around long enough, it becomes the thing that old people use (since its original users grow older with it). Then the next round of teens seek a new platform--even if the functionality is the same--just so they can have it to themselves.
Under this theory, there's nothing Twitter could have done with Vine to make it beat Tik Tok, since a crucial feature of Tik Tok is simply that it's new.
The business strategy in the face of this theory would be to continuously start or buy new social platforms with similar feature sets, but each time with a new brand that is totally separate from the (older) parent brand so teens don't get scared off.
> Scandal and Betrayal: The Story of How Twitter Started
I think this is true, but it's worth also considering the factor of how well a platform is able to keep its users segregated into their own echo chambers wherein they feel as though the platform as a whole meets their standard of what is hip and cool
Take Instagram for example. Ten years on from its inception, it's still very, very popular with 18-24 year olds isn't it? Simultaneously though, as I'm sure many Americans with a ~45 year old mother will be able to attest to, it somehow maintains very strong popularity with middle aged women too.
My idea as to how it maintains its general appeal while catering to these two disparate audiences is that its software mechanisms are carefully designed to keep both audiences separated from each other. Consequently both feel as though it's 'their' platform.
It seems that when a social media platform fails to build an intergenerational iron curtain like this, you end up with something like Facebook, where both generations gravitate away from the platform.
I admit I could be completely off the mark here though, and applying my personal experience more broadly than I should.
Let's say that someday there is a new "teenstagram" launched, and they paid some teenager influencers to drop content there and some cool kids to use and promote it.
In my experience as teens, "it's uncool to use a same platform as the one your grandma use".
Somebody could make new Facebook but people wound't move to it cause Facebook has 15 years head start and gigantic social graph.
TikTok is as far as I can tell not profitable either, and they’ve been burning hundreds of millions on ads as well. I’m guessing the CCP will gladly spend a few billions to have a social media platform that’s used all over the world.
Precisely, although I think it's 50/50 between "what old people use" and "where the corporations live". IG is being used less and less because it's turned into the Home Shopping Network, places like TikTok are popular because corporate interests haven't shown up yet (basically no ads and very few sponsored posts / product placement).
I'm not so sure about this. 80% of my communication happens through Instagram DMs, and I haven't heard a single complaint about advertisements, or Instagram at all.
Rather, I see friends browsing content on TikTok (rather than on IG), then re-sharing it through DMs. They browse on TikTok because its For You Page curation makes finding interesting and entertaining content easier than on any other platform I've seen.
Periodically launch a new instance of the site, on a different URL, with a different colour scheme and an independent userbase?
Even now, they could bring Vine back and compete with TikTok toe-to-toe but they’re evidently allergic to making sound business decisions.
The view that "Vine was tiktok before tiktok" is extremely common. Vine was very popular, was a trend beachhead, but it just wasn't something Twitter was really interested in so they shanked it.
Speaking of which, I didn't realize that musical.ly morphed into TikTok. I knew musical.ly only from Paymoneywubby - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmphkNDosg
Instagram became dominant because it had Facebook's engineering and infrastructure resources. Had they fallen into Twitter's hands, it would be little more than a camera app and a way to embed photos into tweets and or been shut down.
It started with college students. That quickly became adults that continued to use it into their careers. Skipping the myspace teen generation fad cycle.
But yes, US TikTok is absolutely built off of musical.ly services. A lot of the TikTok API URLs still have musical.ly domains.
“Twitter is such as mess — it’s as if they drove a clown car into a gold mine and fell in.” - Mark Zuckerberg
That's not how TikTok works, the feed is really good at tailoring to the stuff you actually like to watch. It's a big part of why it's so popular.
> Reels differs from TikTok thanks to Instagram's augmented reality effects, which let users overlay images and filters onto their videos.
TikTok has had AR filters for a long time now...
Do you mean the superficial author of the piece or the author of the PR material they are regurgitating?
My guess is someone involved with the latter function knows what is going on in the market and is deliberately being deceptive (but probably not outright lying, the release itself probably doesn't claim that TikTok lacks the described features though it is probably written in a way which gives that impression), the former may or may not know, but probably doesn't care; the better a stenographer they are the more access they get.
That’s basically how TikTok started.
I think the author here is differentiating on the pool of available videos to show you. TikTok will show you anything (that fits your profile) from any user, which is markedly different from just showing you content from your social graph.
First and foremost, as a non-Instagram user, I flat-out can’t use it. A while back, when I was curious about TikTok, I downloaded it and was instantly swiping through a video feed that was already getting customized for me. I downloaded Instagram this morning and was presented with a wall to create an account. Nope.
Second, TikTok is new. Instagram is old. Young people want to use the newest social app that old people haven’t yet infiltrated.
There are actually plenty of people over 30 on TikTok FWIW.
I definitely agree that TikTok's no-login-wall NUX was wonderful. You can even watch on a laptop without logging in.
And the beauty of TikTok is that's okay. People over 30 can join the app without disrupting my feed of age-relevant content. This is unlike a lot of other social networks (e.g. Reddit) where content is shows from outside my social graph
Has this been definitely proven though? I tried finding evidence of whether TikTok tailors content for unregistered users (based on their location/device for example), but so far, I could not find a page that would even clearly ask that question. Every article about the algorithm I have read only considers registered users...
Huh – Reels isn't going to compete because you need to download Instagram?
He thinks Reels won’t compete because it forces you to create an Instagram account, you don’t need an account to use TikTok
https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/01/lasso-facebook-tiktok-shut...
Also, FB took a more advanced friend list concept from Google+ but few use or know how it works. (Like how “Acquintances” are your friends but they are pushed down by the algorithm)
It is apparent that it’s hard to just shoehorn different usage patterns due to different social cultures evolving on the respective networks. Let’s see how they do this time...
Most places I go to will still have an analog clock in multiple rooms.
I'd actually forgotten it was the word for the thing film went on.
Instagram already lost me a while ago. It started to hamfist Snapchat stories in there. I also believe they tried to force in Facebook Messenger features at some point.
It also totally ruined any proper disoverability. You like one Comic Book post and suddenly you only get stupid text only posts about superhero facts. With no way to manually configure your interests.
And to make things worse, my personal feed got messed up because they thought it was best to no longer show the feed chronologically. Because hiding new posts lower in the feed, and keep showing me week-old posts on top was obviously a good idea.
All I want is sharing pictures I took with my friends, while also looking at photography from random people.
Sharing pics & stories with friends/ family was why I started using FB years ago. I think Instagram became popular because FB had become a polluted mess before young people even had a chance to try it. Older people just stuck around out of habit.
I never liked IG because generally my FB posts and images are hosted on my blog first and crossposted, something you can't do on IG.
Fully agree that IG is already a mess. But people haven't really abandoned it yet in numbers. They just stopped attracting new people.
Most just end up polluting their functionality so much that it destroys the original core.
Of the first three posts I saw, two of them were cross posted from TikTok. Not that it’s new to see social media content posted to another app, but is there anything to be said for the fact that Facebook can now monetize TikToks in another fashion?
Seems like even if they don’t win in terms of creators moving platforms, it would still be in a creator’s best interest to post a successful TikTok again as a Reel.
The goal is to hook you after all...
https://twitter.com/JeffRightNoww/status/1287842365126914048
(Coincidentally, I think Jeff Wright had his breakthrough TikTok...)
Why not have a separate section dedicated to Reels content instead of having it interspersed with photos and regular video posts?
So in a sense, any Reel is a portal into "a separate section dedicated to Reels content".
I think they are trying to make old users suddenly discover reels while flipping through photos, but it feels very messy.
Please don't destroy it, Facebook.
In that it's a VR device, yes. But it's a standalone headset with Inside Out tracking. Many people didn't think this was possible.
> And it was another company they bought, and I'd be more inclined to give credits to the Occulus team than to Facebook.
A significant amount of FB employees developed this headset. It is Oculus is Facebook now.
they don't even pretend to be honest (unlike Google) and it's a miracle so far they haven't had to pay damages for all the 'inspiration' they have found from other people's products
This is most likely to boost account #s but it's frustrating to have to follow multiple accounts for one person.
P.S. Tags could be better still, but only if they're used consistently. My experience with other places/tools that use tags is that never ever happens, so I'd go with streams.
This feels wrong.
Discovering reels is tricky also. I have to go to search and click on the word reels within the random suggested reel at the top.
What is more - I want reels to be separate from whom I follow on Instagram. I want to follow certain content creators for their reels, but do not want to see their stories or photo stream. I also don't want them to show up as people I follow on my main Instagram profile.
The TikTok features for creating content, discovering it, replying to it (remix / duet etc) and just the responsiveness of the UI make it much more fun and pleasant to use.
Reels does not meaningfully compete with TikTok. It will only appeal to some of the existing user base, but not attract TikTok users.
FYI I'm 34. I post music, running, travel and random adventure clips to Instagram, TikTok and other places.
people use it for the content, not the navigation style
Roughly eight-in-ten Snapchat users ages 18 to 29 (77%) say they use the app every day, including 68% who say they do so multiple times day.
- TikTok is somewhat mindless entertainment. Keep scrolling, watch funny or informative videos, and the algorithm will tailor more content to your tastes. It's fun and an absolute time-suck, but not any kind of critical communication. I don't personally know anyone who makes TikTok content, but most people I know watch it at least occasionally.
- Instagram is used for sharing a more public view of your life. While most people I know have private accounts, they usually follow and are followed by between a few hundred and a thousand or so other accounts (think classmates and friends of friends). Instagram is where you post photos of yourself in the best possible light, not just silly and random things. People use Stories to share news and post sillier and less permanent content. Not everyone just scrolls endlessly on Instagram; I only follow people I know in real life but many people follow celebrities and meme accounts as well.
- Snapchat is more like a communication platform than a social media platform. People send disappearing photos (usually quick selfies or photos of what they're doing at the moment) to their friends. If you exchange a photo or video with someone for any number of consecutive days, you'll start a streak with that person, which further incentivizes you to continue sending photos to them. Snapchat also has stories, but these are usually intended to be even less permanent. Candid selfies with friends or videos of people doing silly things are the main use, at least within my extended group of friends. It's gotten no less popular recently.
- YouTube continues to be popular. Hopefully this should be self-explanatory. Gaming content is popular.
- Facebook is basically unused by anyone my age other than for specific groups that haven't migrated elsewhere.
- GroupMe is popular for college class group chats and whatnot, but not as a place to hang out and talk about other stuff.
- Twitter is still occasionally used for content consumption, but not as much as Instagram.
- FaceTime, Snapchat's video-calling functionality, and Houseparty (sometimes) are the usual ways to communicate via video chat between friends.
- Discord is expanding outside of gaming circles for text and voice chat.
- Reddit is mildly popular for meme content.
I barely look at it more than once every few days now as it has lost much of its utility.
Most of my friends and family are on other social networks and sites (twitter, strava, discord) now with fewer, or no ads, or even just whatsapp groups on the phone.
But transitioning to more intimate forms of social media is a great move, so I'm glad you made the switch. A lot of people do find Facebook (for example) to be too fake, while others need it to keep in touch with their family and communities.
The product they are launching, for me, isn't relevant either.
We've long since reached peak Facebook, and its social network is fragmenting as they're losing people for the reasons I mentioned previously. They're effectively chasing a new audience to keep their numbers up.
Any advice how to get your friends to switch, when they do not care much about their privacy and have a defeatism attitude with regard to guarding their privacy or simply do not understand, that their actions affect their friends?
For people I consider casual acquaintances or just outside of the "inner circle" so to speak, I just use SMS.
This is an article about a product launch that:
* Barely talks about the product at all.
* No demos of what the product does.
* Not even a single picture of what the product looks like.
* Does not link to the actual product's page.
* Very few links at all, and mostly to their own pages.
* Is 50% about the competitor's legal/political issues.
* IS 50% about the parent company's strategy in launching the product.
I don't understand why there can't be 2 articles here:
* Information about the product launch.
* An opinion article about Facebook strategy vs. Microsoft TikTok Trump.
I'm pretty sure everyone just skims these articles because they are so uninformative. Can I be the only person who feels this way?
A lot of "news" articles are just PR departments lobbying journalists. The journalist tweaks stuff slightly, then dumps it over the wall. This sort of thing is very cheap to produce. And, to be fair, it isn't actually new. The more useful/novel/investigative content has slowly declined, so this is all that's left.
There just isn't any money in writing news. Newspapers were never paid for news content, but rather delivering ads to everyone's doorstep daily. E.g. subscription revenue was much less than ad revenue, to the point that it was never clear to me why subscription prices were non-zero (though they were usually separate departments with their own P&L, so it's probably just historical).
There are better ways to find classifieds, job listings, and brand advertising these days... So now we have this junk. If one could find a way of financially or otherwise incentivizing real journalism, you'd be a folk hero.
Save the corporate strategery and political intrigue stuff for another article.
FTFY.
I'm being facetious of course. The real clone here is being done by the US gov't, who is copying the Chinese playbook: keep out a foreign company by political means, thus encouraging local competitors.
I guess it's really true that you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
FTFY ;)
Never heard it that way.
> Reels' video distribution algorithm will resemble TikTok's: users will see the most popular videos at the moment, rather than a selection tailored to their individual profile
TikTok is all about showing you content tailored to you. Compare your TikTok feed to any of your friends' and it'll be super different.
> Reels differs from TikTok thanks to Instagram's augmented reality effects, which let users overlay images and filters onto their videos
TikTok's had this forever.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/instagram-relat...
Is this being engineered or is it because of the Trump interview on Axios?
APNews is only good for the fact that something happened, not for any degree of interpretation, and you have to be on your guard for what isn't being said and what facts haven't been mentioned.
The Economist is different because they talk about only a few things and usually add a whole lot of opinion, but when I do dig deeper I find that they generally take defensible stances even if there are problems with their arguments. And if Hacker News is any indication, you'll never be able to assert anything with confidence, however well researched, without someone else asserting the exact opposite with more confidence.
My experience with Axios is that they generally avoid taking editorial positions that are obviously partisan, though they are clearly left of center on the American political spectrum (then again, I think America's current political spectrum has moved so much that the bounds of reality are now mostly left of center). When I dig deeper, I usually find that they aren't guilty of selectively presenting information. Their business model is still ad driven, so they are not immune to the classic problems of money influencing news, so I still view Axios with default skepticism.
Reuters stories also fill that role now, as eg Bloomberg and many other prominent news sources have clamped down hard on their non-paywalled content.
They also do occasional stories that look like obvious beat-sweateners[0], likely to keep that access flowing.
Overall I'd say it's a pretty good source for non-partisan news.
[0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beat%20sweet...
Are these the only two possible reasons to choose from?
Oh god. It means that, like Instagram TV or whatever it was called, it will be forcibly shoved down your throat for the next half a year with nagging reminders for another year.
It still failed, of course, and got relegated to a small button inside the explore tab, but it the push was aggressive nonetheless. Expect the same for "Facebook's TikTok".