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!
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.
Using engagement for metric will ofc render algorithmic feed “better”, i.e. addictive. Their value is not about mental wellbeing.
yep note that it didn’t measure addiction or how much screen time in a day or anything, the only metric is “more is better”, which ask anyone and they’ll say it’s the opposite
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)
Company study confirms what company wants you to believe. More at 11.
This is a non-issue. Provide the chronological feed and let people choose how they want to consume their content.
That would be great, but it would lead to people not being as engaged in the site: the entire point of this corporate-sponsored research
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.
“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.
Facebook want enraged users, enraged users are engaged users. They don’t care about mental health or enjoyment, just how long you stay on Facebook.
Less engagement is exactly what I would want. Show me my new chronological content and then I’ll get the hell out of there.
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
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
Usage time ≠ enjoyment.
But unfortunately more usage time = more ads = more profit
That’s the only thing they really care about.
I love how it’s now “okey” for a private company to conduct experiments/studies on people. What the actual fuck!
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.
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.
