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)
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.
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
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.
Company study confirms what company wants you to believe. More at 11.
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.
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.
“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.
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
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.
I forgot: are Lemmy’s active and hot sorts chronological? They’re pretty decent, but I do find stale content does get stuck on one that isn’t there on the other.
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
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.
People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
Cool! Even they did prove anything there, I would prefer no longer to be considered them as “People” if that lets me keep using my perfectly ordered, labeled and sequentially ordered RSS. My brain just has no time and interest for an infinite stream of haphazardly cooked up stuff.
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.
