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!

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

    I’d argue it almost definitely has to be better than engagement, though.

    Totally agree. I think those who design the algorithms and measure engagement need to remember that there is a difference between immediate dopamine rush versus long term user satisfaction. User votes can sometimes be poor predictors of long term satisfaction, but I imagine engagement metrics are even less reliable.

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

        That’s not a sustainable model, either. Zynga had a decent run but ended up flaming out, eventually purchased by a large gaming company.

        That’s to say nothing of the business models around gambling, alcohol, tobacco, and addictive pharmaceuticals. Low level background addiction is the most profitable, while intense and debilitating addictions tend to lead to unstable revenue (and heavy regulation).