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.
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.
I found that back in the old days of Facebook (pre-enshitification, or at least full steam enshitification) I could log in, catch up on what all my distant relatives and friends were up to, leave some comments, maybe post something myself, and log out in around 10-15 minutes max. Then they started “improving” things, and suddenly there was “engaging” content, and it took at least ½ an hour.
I think it makes sense that from Facebook’s perspective, a chronological feed is worse.
Having said that, some people post more than others, so I do appreciate using the Hot and Active sorts for Lemmy in addition to Top - Day. It’s a feature I miss from Mastodon. There is a headline bot that I like following, to catch the recent headlines, and the weather. Problem is that something like ¼ of my feed can just be the bot, and yesterday’s headlines aren’t news anymore, I’m more interested in the ongoing discussion. So I do appreciate the non-chronological sorts, when they make things better for me, and not a corporation’s bottom line.
Yep, I basically stopped using Facebook when it changed away from that. It also changed in other ways, in that people would be posting about politics and memes instead of just life updates and holiday pictures.
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.
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.
What I want is to see the new posts of my network. With chronological, I know when I see a previously seen post, that I’m done. With algorithmic, I’m scrolling past tons of posts I’ve seen before, hoping to find a new one every once in a while. And I never know when I’m done, so I frustratingly close the app after a longer time.
Less engagement is exactly what I would want. Show me my new chronological content and then I’ll get the hell out of there.
Yep, i like knowing i have at least seen everything new. But, its bad for business to let the user leave when they are all caught up
But shareholders need to eat! The pushers need to get you addicted to make money!
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.
“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.
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”
@・ꈊ・@
Usage time ≠ enjoyment.
But unfortunately more usage time = more ads = more profit
That’s the only thing they really care about.
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)
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.
Disappointed with Wired writing totally wrong title. Meta didn’t prove anything. It was a claim, not a proof.
The headline is ridiculous and leaving instagram for youtube and tiktok is a weird point since they are very different to what people use instagram for?
But why does everything in the world have to be so THIS or THAT??? Why can’t i have a chronological feed that gives me a “recommended” post every 3rd or so post? I want to see everything from everyone I follow while sometimes seeing new stuff and then when ive caught up i want to close the app and go on with my day.
I dont want For You or Following tabs. I want to choose how often im recommended content and see/change what its basing the recommendations off of. Everything in life doesnt have to be a war between red or blue hats for crying out loud
i want to close the app and go on with my day
That’s exactly the “problem” being portrayed here, the expected/ideal mode of interaction with social media is compulsive and perpetual. It’s the best way to maximize advertisement exposure. I’m not opposed to the slot machine of content, but it’s absolutely reasonable to expect users to want to go on with their day.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
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.
