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!

  • notenoughbutter
    68·
    1 year ago

    I’d like to interject for a moment and say,

    this isn’t a test for what users like, this is a test for how users are addicted to the platform

    algorithm provides content in a way that they become a consoomer and more often than not, we actually feel guilty and sad after an hour of scrolling and realising we wasted so much time (like post masturbation sadness)

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      1·
      1 year ago

      this isn’t a test for what users like, this is a test for how users are addicted to the platform

      No, it’s a test for what people prefer. If they were addicted to the platform they wouldn’t just leave it and go somewhere else when the sorting is different.