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!
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.
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.
Yeah, if you were ever unsure where wired stands as a reputable organization, here’s all the evidence you need.
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.
When I look at my subscriptions, I sort by new because it lets me see what I want quicker. Top is filled with old things so I almost never use it. Hot is what I use if not restricting to just subs. Once I’m done looking at what’s new, I’m done. No wasting time on stuff I’ve seen before.
I’m much more “engaged” when you hide my needle in a haystack. Simply handing me the needle allows me to grab it and go.
Needle in this case is finding out what my friends are up to
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
This.
The headline is kind of awful - users finding satiation and logging off to do something else is not a sign that users had an unsatisfactory or suboptimal experience. Maybe they actually enjoy the experience more.
But it’s not optimizing for Meta’s business goals.
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
That’s true but did anyone think Meta cared about mental well-being? They’re a company, their only goal is to make money.
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.
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
No but don’t you see the system is closed source and we choose how you consume it in a purely authoritarian manner and it could never be any other way.
This is a real dichotomy.
ITT: tech people and power users struggle to understand that the masses use devices and services differently than they do.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
In a mother news: “drug dealers proved that drug addicts hate not getting their daily dose”
“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 exclusively use a bookmark that still (now mostly) forces a chronological feed order.
Usage time ≠ enjoyment.
But unfortunately more usage time = more ads = more profit
That’s the only thing they really care about.
Prefer is weasel language. The utility function they are using is if a User stays on the platform, while the user utility function may be simply - Did I get updates on everything I care about?
Giving users agency over their feed is empowering, sure some people may want to be stuck in a never-ending loop of content - and thats fine for them, but the option for someone to see the most relevant posts from their subscribed communities/friends in a quick fashion is important.
I’m excited to see more user configurable agency in the fediverse. Imagine you have 100 friends, a few rarely post, a few post every 5 minutes, and everyone else in between. If my goal is to stay updated with all 100 friends, but in 10 minute a day increments then I want a agent that shows me the top content uniformly distributed across all 100 of my contacts, such that I see the one post from the introvert rather then the 95 shit posts from the extrovert drowning out that content (the influencer/engagement enshitification cycle).
The same applies to lemmy communities, and while our feed algorithms are not there yet, I’m excite to see development continue.
Yep, exactly. With a chronological feed, I can scroll until I know I’m caught up. The algorithmic feed keeps throwing stuff at you and you’re never ‘caught up’. So yeah, great for engagement, but they didn’t actually ask the users how they felt about it.
Agreed. Chronological is a good first step. Lemmy devs - Don’t stop there! Chronological isn’t the be all end all of feeds. For most people I think they would want Chronological feeds, but sampled across all their subscriptions/friends.
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.
Youtube has a topic-bar at the top which looks like it might help
One annoying thing is that the topic bar isn’t always there, the UI isn’t consistent and things show up on the page when YouTube feels like it.
The algorithm is designed to keep you on the platform with endless feeds of content you might click on. And the site is designed to force you towards the algorithm as much as possible. They don’t want to give you choice about how you might want to view content, they just want you to stay on the platform.
Personally I like just putting all the new content from my subscription that I am interested in, in a watch list then playing through that list and leave when I am done. But youtube is making that workflow harder and harder. Just recently they moved the add to watch later button from the hover on the video to a submenu, resulting in a lot more clicks to do what I used to. And it is now very hard to actually manage your subscriptions in bulk.
Less engagement doesn’t mean dislike.
That said I do think people get a little too excited about chronological order. I’m fine with any transparent algorithm, I think the old reddit “best” algorithm thatthe xkcd guy made is still a very good way to order comments and I liked the Q&A sort method in specific cases.
The xkcd guy made that?
I slightly mis-remembered apparently, he introduced the idea to reddit and was a heavy heavy advocate for it, but I he didn’t come up with it.
So is there a Lemmy/kbin equivalent?
Hmm… 2008… when did Reddit stop being OpenSource?
I mis-remembered apparently, he was just a heavy heavy advocate for it.
In Facebook, where I’m following family members and news sites, is where I’d want chronological feed the most. I don’t want the “best” of my family’s posts from one week ago.
Disappointed with Wired writing totally wrong title. Meta didn’t prove anything. It was a claim, not a proof.
