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!

  • GadgeteerZA@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m sorry, but those “suggestions” sound wrong - a chronological feed exposes users to untrustworthy content. The point is an algorithmic feed is unknown manipulation UNLESS the algorithm is known and published. Engaging less is also NOT a bad thing at all, unless you are the platform itself. The inference is that an algorithm will expose users to less political and untrustworthy content? Well, certainly not if the platform wants to generate continuous engagement through provocation and the creation of outrage.

    But OK, it is an experiment by Meta, so let’s just leave it at that.

    • SpamCamel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.

      But in all seriousness, this feels like the chronological feed given to users was just a straw man intended to make their algorithm look better. Also the claim in the article that Meta’s algorithm does not impact users politics is completely ridiculous and not at all supported by a study like this.