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!
The actual problem is that they think they should just force one or the other on us. Give us a choice to sort our feed and we’ll figure out what we like best.
But then people can choose the option that does not have them scrolling for hours. Which means less time and less views on the platform. Why would they give you that option?
Goes to show I am getting tired. Why didn’t I think of that. Ofcourse meta wants to keep you on their platform as long as possible. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
I agree, I don’t think it’s accurate to say engagement was less. If I want to see what is new with my friends and I can quickly see everything in just a few swipes instead of swiping w For hours to see if I can see something new it will cause me to spend less time on the platform, but I’ll enjoy it more because I can spend more time doing things with them in person.
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.
I’m pretty sure you can actually do that with FB/IG too, most just don’t bother
Instagram, facebook and threads all have chronological feeds they are just hidden
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.
I wouldn’t be opposed to some sort of recommendation algorithm, but it should be in a separate section. Especially for new users it’s hard to find people/lemmits to follow, so it would be useful for that.
Worth keeping in mind that Facebook has manipulated data before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_video#Facebook_metrics_controversy
In September 2016, Facebook admitted that it had reported artificially inflated numbers to its advertisers about how long viewers watched ads leading to an overestimation of 60-80%[44] Facebook apologized in an official statement and in multiple staff appearances at New York Advertising Week.[45][46] Two months later, Facebook disclosed additional discrepancies in audience metrics.[47][48] In October 2018, a California federal court unsealed the text of a class action lawsuit filed by advertisers against Facebook, alleging that Facebook had known since 2015 that its viewership numbers were inflated “by some 150 to 900 percent” and waited over a year before taking action to disclose or fix the problem, citing internal Facebook communications that “somehow there was no progress on the task for the year” and decisions to “obfuscate the fact that we screwed up the math.”[49][50]
Not sure what you think is manipulated here. It’s pretty logical that algorithmically curated feeds are going to lead to higher engagement.
I guess I’m a minority because I mostly stopped using Facebook after they got rid of chronological feeds because that’s all I wanted.
They brought it back recently and made me use facebook even more
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!
And that is the problem for the commercial platforms. They don’t want you to leave, they don’t want you to “be done”, they want you reading and engaging as much as they can because that’s part of what they sell to advertisers.
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.
Yes I always want the option. I’m fine with an algorithm feed when I’m randomly checking in, but I really prefer chronological when an event is happening for instance and I want to see people’s most recent takes.
Indeed. It’s also nice how transparent the algorithms here are, we have access to the source code and documentation so we all know exactly how they work.
Disappointed with Wired writing totally wrong title. Meta didn’t prove anything. It was a claim, not a proof.
Mix addictive ingredients into food and the consumer will eat more than naturally, but it’s not better for him. Saying “more is better” and confusing “to engage” with “to like” is eval.
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…
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.
People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
Here’s a different view of the same study: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190383104/new-study-shows-just-how-facebooks-algorithm-shapes-conservative-and-liberal-bub
