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!

  • haganbmj@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • inconel@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • sculd@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.