Meta conducted an experiment where thousands of users were shown chronological feeds on Facebook and Instagram for three months. Users of the chronological feeds engaged less with the platforms and were more likely to use competitors like YouTube and TikTok. This suggests that users prefer algorithmically ranked feeds that show them more relevant content, even though some argue chronological feeds provide more transparency. While the experiment found that chronological feeds exposed users to more political and untrustworthy content, it did not significantly impact their political views or behaviors. The researchers note that a permanent switch to chronological feeds could produce different results, but this study provides only a glimpse into the issue.
I think this is bullshit. I exclusively scroll Lemmy in new mode. I scroll I see a post I already have seen. Then I leave. That doesn’t mean I hate it, I’m just done!
Using engagement for metric will ofc render algorithmic feed “better”, i.e. addictive. Their value is not about mental wellbeing.
The fact that they switched to a different algorithmic feed instead of reducing use time indicates that it’s a problem that needs legislation to address, since it will not be in any individual company’s interest to stop.
I found that back in the old days of Facebook (pre-enshitification, or at least full steam enshitification) I could log in, catch up on what all my distant relatives and friends were up to, leave some comments, maybe post something myself, and log out in around 10-15 minutes max. Then they started “improving” things, and suddenly there was “engaging” content, and it took at least ½ an hour.
I think it makes sense that from Facebook’s perspective, a chronological feed is worse.
Having said that, some people post more than others, so I do appreciate using the Hot and Active sorts for Lemmy in addition to Top - Day. It’s a feature I miss from Mastodon. There is a headline bot that I like following, to catch the recent headlines, and the weather. Problem is that something like ¼ of my feed can just be the bot, and yesterday’s headlines aren’t news anymore, I’m more interested in the ongoing discussion. So I do appreciate the non-chronological sorts, when they make things better for me, and not a corporation’s bottom line.
They don’t “hate” chronological feeds. The study say they are more likely to disengage, and that’s probably because people got what they need from the chronological feed and log off to do other things…
Proving that chronological feed is more healthy.
This sounds like a successful efficiency study presented by a horror director.
Why would you “get what you need” quicker with a chronological feed? The more engaged with content is what most people are going to the site for, it’s like browsing Lemmy on top vs new, and frankly new is mostly crap.
Less engagement is exactly what I would want. Show me my new chronological content and then I’ll get the hell out of there.
But shareholders need to eat! The pushers need to get you addicted to make money!
“Spend less time once on” is different than “hate”. I hated FB’s feed so much that I was reluctant to get on in the first place, a metric completely different from how long I would spend once I DID open it.
If you’re suggesting a Chrono feed is more efficient and you spend less time on because all the news has been consumed, well, then, I totally agree.
I admit I still jump on Facebook. I exclusively use a bookmark that still (now mostly) forces a chronological feed order.
I think this is bullshit. I exclusively scroll Lemmy in new mode. I scroll I see a post I already have seen. Then I leave.
From Facebook point of view, then your engagement is low. Low engagement = less ad views = they make less money
So they need to maximize doom scrolling. Turn off your brain and scroll for a couple hours with stuff the algorithm choose for you, thanks
I’d like to interject for a moment and say,
this isn’t a test for what users like, this is a test for how users are addicted to the platform
algorithm provides content in a way that they become a consoomer and more often than not, we actually feel guilty and sad after an hour of scrolling and realising we wasted so much time (like post masturbation sadness)
I mean, this isn’t that surprising as the algorithm is intended for full dopamine distribution. It’s like a fucking dopamine faucet and we are all just a bunch of apes.
Classic false dilemma. It was never about “algorithm vs chronological”. The problem is the lack of options. Having algorithmic magic be the only way to browse content is the issue. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exits or even that it shouldn’t be the default. There should just me more other ways that the user can switch too.
I have that issue with Youtube, which can be really good at recommending obscure videos with a couple of hundred views that are exactly about the topic you are looking for. But there is no way for me to actively select the topic that the recommendation machine recommends, it’s all based and watch history can very easily get screwed up when you watch the wrong videos. Worse yet, it can’t handle multiple topics at once, so one topic will naturally end up suppressing the other. The workaround for that is to run multiple browser profiles, train each of them on a topic and than be very careful what video you watch with what profile. But that’s frankly stupid, such functionality should be in the UI. Youtube has a topic-bar at the top which looks like it might help, but it’s far to unspecific to be useful, something like “Gaming” isn’t one topic, it’s thousands of topics bundled into one, the recommendation algorithm understands each of the thousand topics individually, the UI does not.
Give users choice.
So basically the algorithm feeds an unhealthy addiction. And in no moment the study even tries to contradict the main concerns against algorithm-based sorting: lack of transparency, unhealthiness, bubbling, and feeding into dichotomies like “you like apples, so YOU’RE A BANANA HATER!”.
Better approaches put power on the hands of the users. For example, tagging content, or sorting it into communities. Perhaps not surprisingly it’s how Mastodon and Lemmy do it, respectively.
There’s also the matter of quality, not just personal preferences; this sort of thing does require an algorithm, but there’s nothing preventing it from being simple, customisable, and open, so users know exactly why they’re being shown something instead of something else.
I’m sorry, but those “suggestions” sound wrong - a chronological feed exposes users to untrustworthy content. The point is an algorithmic feed is unknown manipulation UNLESS the algorithm is known and published. Engaging less is also NOT a bad thing at all, unless you are the platform itself. The inference is that an algorithm will expose users to less political and untrustworthy content? Well, certainly not if the platform wants to generate continuous engagement through provocation and the creation of outrage.
But OK, it is an experiment by Meta, so let’s just leave it at that.
I wouldn’t want to be stuck with ether one. Sort options. Let me choose how to sort my feed, whenever I want to. Sometimes I scroll thru hot, sometimes I’m in new, sometimes I use both in the same session. There’s no reason to lock it to one or the other permanently.
People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
I’m the opposite, chronological feed made me use social media even more
Users of the chronological feeds engaged less with the platforms
Because there is no endless content. You will eventually reach the end of your feed, close your browser and go to bed, sleeping well and staying healthy.
But of course Meta prefers you doomscrolling through the entire night and feeling like shit afterwards. Just one more ad bro…
