Some social media users and lawmakers say chronological feeds are healthier. A new study found that Facebook and Instagram users who were forced to see time-ranked posts turned to TikTok instead.

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!

  • jonne@infosec.pubEnglish
    10·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • jonne@infosec.pubEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        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.