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.
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.
People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
How about you give people the choice?
The best thing about reddit/Lemmy is you can sort content by new, hot, controversial, etc. Depending on what you’re in the mood to view.
Instagram, facebook and threads all have chronological feeds they are just hidden
I’m pretty sure you can actually do that with FB/IG too, most just don’t bother
I also feel like a lot of the value of chronological is lost if I think it’s algorithmic recommendations. If I don’t know I’m browsing the latest? I’ll likely just think the algorithm is serving up some garbage. Especially somewhere like Facebook, where people haven’t really been curating their feed for years, just… following whoever to be polite and letting the algorithm take care of it.
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.
Less engagement is exactly what I would want. Show me my new chronological content and then I’ll get the hell out of there.
deleted by creator
They want to optimize engagement so they give some users certain content and other users other content to see what works. Not sure what is that mindblowing about it. It’s how basically every website tests new features.
