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!
No but don’t you see the system is closed source and we choose how you consume it in a purely authoritarian manner and it could never be any other way.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
This is a non-issue. Provide the chronological feed and let people choose how they want to consume their content.
No but don’t you see the system is closed source and we choose how you consume it in a purely authoritarian manner and it could never be any other way.
This is a real dichotomy.
That would be great, but it would lead to people not being as engaged in the site: the entire point of this corporate-sponsored research