- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
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!
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
Using engagement for metric will ofc render algorithmic feed “better”, i.e. addictive. Their value is not about mental wellbeing.
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.
Less engagement is exactly what I would want. Show me my new chronological content and then I’ll get the hell out of there.
But shareholders need to eat! The pushers need to get you addicted to make money!
“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’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)
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”
Usage time ≠ enjoyment.
But unfortunately more usage time = more ads = more profit
That’s the only thing they really care about.
Disappointed with Wired writing totally wrong title. Meta didn’t prove anything. It was a claim, not a proof.
People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
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.
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.
This is a non-issue. Provide the chronological feed and let people choose how they want to consume their content.
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.
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.
