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!

266 points

Using engagement for metric will ofc render algorithmic feed “better”, i.e. addictive. Their value is not about mental wellbeing.

permalink
report
reply
69 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

That’s true but did anyone think Meta cared about mental well-being? They’re a company, their only goal is to make money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
260 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
55 points

This sounds like a successful efficiency study presented by a horror director.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Yeah, if you were ever unsure where wired stands as a reputable organization, here’s all the evidence you need.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
126 points

Less engagement is exactly what I would want. Show me my new chronological content and then I’ll get the hell out of there.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

But shareholders need to eat! The pushers need to get you addicted to make money!

permalink
report
parent
reply
81 points

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

permalink
report
reply
44 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
73 points

“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.

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I exclusively use a bookmark that still (now mostly) forces a chronological feed order.

https://www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.4K

    Posts

  • 78K

    Comments