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!
The headline is ridiculous and leaving instagram for youtube and tiktok is a weird point since they are very different to what people use instagram for?
But why does everything in the world have to be so THIS or THAT??? Why can’t i have a chronological feed that gives me a “recommended” post every 3rd or so post? I want to see everything from everyone I follow while sometimes seeing new stuff and then when ive caught up i want to close the app and go on with my day.
I dont want For You or Following tabs. I want to choose how often im recommended content and see/change what its basing the recommendations off of. Everything in life doesnt have to be a war between red or blue hats for crying out loud
That’s exactly the “problem” being portrayed here, the expected/ideal mode of interaction with social media is compulsive and perpetual. It’s the best way to maximize advertisement exposure. I’m not opposed to the slot machine of content, but it’s absolutely reasonable to expect users to want to go on with their day.
Cool! Even they did prove anything there, I would prefer no longer to be considered them as “People” if that lets me keep using my perfectly ordered, labeled and sequentially ordered RSS. My brain just has no time and interest for an infinite stream of haphazardly cooked up stuff.
I forgot: are Lemmy’s active and hot sorts chronological? They’re pretty decent, but I do find stale content does get stuck on one that isn’t there on the other.
Meta analysis: researchers interpret results incorrectly. Here’s a bunch of results discussing just that (in fact meta analyses are usually carried out to demonstrate this fact):
I think the conclusion that people hate chronological feeds is not a very strong conclusion. People also hate some algorithmic feeds, especially when it’s full of crap and there is no chronology anymore. An ideal situation would be if you could choose both and also if you could influence the algorithm.
“Spend less time once on” is different than “hate”. I hated FB’s feed so much that I was reluctant to get on in the first place, a metric completely different from how long I would spend once I DID open it.
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…
Why would you “get what you need” quicker with a chronological feed? The more engaged with content is what most people are going to the site for, it’s like browsing Lemmy on top vs new, and frankly new is mostly crap.
What I want is to see the new posts of my network. With chronological, I know when I see a previously seen post, that I’m done. With algorithmic, I’m scrolling past tons of posts I’ve seen before, hoping to find a new one every once in a while. And I never know when I’m done, so I frustratingly close the app after a longer time.
When I look at my subscriptions, I sort by new because it lets me see what I want quicker. Top is filled with old things so I almost never use it. Hot is what I use if not restricting to just subs. Once I’m done looking at what’s new, I’m done. No wasting time on stuff I’ve seen before.
Exactly, they can coexist, so I’m not sure why people are so against having both. Content discovery is likely to be be the biggest barrier for entry for new social media platforms, because if you don’t have a reason to stay, why would you? It’s pretty much the primary obstacle to getting people away from Reddit or Twitter and onto an alternative.
as soon as instagram lost the chronological feed I stopped using it, it just made it useless to keep track of what friends and family were doing. I dont care they went to dinner two weeks ago, I might have commented something if they were there today though
Is it possible to design a content recommendation algorithm that isn’t game-able? As it stands right now I don’t think that algorithms are fundamentally bad, just that capitalism ruins everything.
If you weighted things by clicks vs time viewing maybe? The true issue is lack of moderation.
Non genuine accounts boost the post for whatever reason. This creates engagement. This is good for the marketer and the platform because they make their money through advertising. They don’t care if marketing firms are using thousands of zombie accounts to boost posts.
The question is what do you use to measure quality?
Engagement is useful but leads to this, obviously. But unless people are constantly rating content they like and don’t like (Reddit was the closest to a robust way to do that), it’s hard to train what content they want.
In the 80’s, Pepsi was gaining quickly on Coca Cola with the Pepsi challenge: having tasters blindly tasting Pepsi versus Coke and choosing which one they liked better. Pepsi won a majority of these. But over the decades, it turns out that consumer preference for a sip of each didn’t necessarily translate over an entire can, or an entire case of cans. When asked to drink 12-20 ounces (350 to 600 ml) of the soft drink, regularly, people behaved differently than what they did for a 2 ounce (60 ml) taste.
Yeah, you’re right that even having users rate content is still limited.
I’d argue it almost definitely has to be better than engagement, though. It also has the potential to be less punitive to people who actually are thoughtful with what they like by using the likes as more of a classification problem and less shoving the same trash in everyone’s face.
It’s a hard problem, but sites aren’t even attempting to actually attempt to do anything but tie you to a shitty dopamine loop.
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.
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).
It is not at the moment. Models are built on the assumption of stability, i.e. that what they are modelling doesn’t change over time, doesn’t evolve. This is clearly untrue, and cheating is a way the environment evolves. Only way to consider that, is to create a on-line continous learning algorithm. Currently this exists and is called reinforcement learning. Main issue is that methods to account for an evolving environment are still under active research. In the sense that methods to address this issue are not yet available.
It requires continuous expansive improvements. It is like real world. Building a system robust to frauds works on the short term, but on the mid and long term is impossibile. That is why laws change, evolve, we have governments and so on. Because system reacts to your rules and algorithms, making them less effective.
And these continous expensive improvements are done daily, but it is a difficult job
I don’t think the idea should be to make the algorithm’s ungameable because I feel like that is literally impossible with humans. The first rule of web dev or game dev is that the users are going to find ways to use your site, app, software, or api in ways you never intended regardless of how long you, or even a team of people, think about it.
I’d rather see something where the algorithm is open and pieces of it are voted on by the users and other interested parties. Perhaps let people create and curate their own algorithm’s, something like playlist curation on spotify or youtube but make it as transparent as possible, let people share them and such. Kind of like how playlists are shared.
I’d rather see something where the algorithm is open and pieces of it are voted on by the users and other interested parties. Perhaps let people create and curate their own algorithm’s, something like playlist curation on spotify or youtube but make it as transparent as possible, let people share them and such. Kind of like how playlists are shared.
Isn’t that already how it works, sans the transparency part?
You press “like” on something you like, and the algorithm shows you more that are related to that thing you just liked. Indirectly, you’re curating your feed/algorithm. Or maybe you can look at this from another angle, maybe the “like” button isn’t just for the things you like, but also the things that you don’t particularity like, but would like to see more.
Then there’s other people around you, your Facebook friends, their likes also affect your feed, as you can see the algorithm suggests things that “people that are interested in things you’re interested in, are also interested in”.
Goodhart’s Law: Any statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed on it for control purposes.
Or, to paraphrase, any metric that becomes a target ceases to be a good metric. Ranking algorithms, by their nature, use some sort of quantifiable metric as a heuristic for quality.
I mean, this isn’t that surprising as the algorithm is intended for full dopamine distribution. It’s like a fucking dopamine faucet and we are all just a bunch of apes.
Mix addictive ingredients into food and the consumer will eat more than naturally, but it’s not better for him. Saying “more is better” and confusing “to engage” with “to like” is eval.
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.
The headline is ridiculous and leaving instagram for youtube and tiktok is a weird point since they are very different to what people use instagram for?
But why does everything in the world have to be so THIS or THAT??? Why can’t i have a chronological feed that gives me a “recommended” post every 3rd or so post? I want to see everything from everyone I follow while sometimes seeing new stuff and then when ive caught up i want to close the app and go on with my day.
I dont want For You or Following tabs. I want to choose how often im recommended content and see/change what its basing the recommendations off of. Everything in life doesnt have to be a war between red or blue hats for crying out loud
That’s exactly the “problem” being portrayed here, the expected/ideal mode of interaction with social media is compulsive and perpetual. It’s the best way to maximize advertisement exposure. I’m not opposed to the slot machine of content, but it’s absolutely reasonable to expect users to want to go on with their day.
Cool! Even they did prove anything there, I would prefer no longer to be considered them as “People” if that lets me keep using my perfectly ordered, labeled and sequentially ordered RSS. My brain just has no time and interest for an infinite stream of haphazardly cooked up stuff.
I forgot: are Lemmy’s active and hot sorts chronological? They’re pretty decent, but I do find stale content does get stuck on one that isn’t there on the other.
Meta analysis: researchers interpret results incorrectly. Here’s a bunch of results discussing just that (in fact meta analyses are usually carried out to demonstrate this fact):
https://www.google.com/search?q=meta+analysis+researchers+interpret+results+incorrectly
People don’t hate it. Facebook and its shareholders hate it because it means less earnings.
I think the conclusion that people hate chronological feeds is not a very strong conclusion. People also hate some algorithmic feeds, especially when it’s full of crap and there is no chronology anymore. An ideal situation would be if you could choose both and also if you could influence the algorithm.
“Spend less time once on” is different than “hate”. I hated FB’s feed so much that I was reluctant to get on in the first place, a metric completely different from how long I would spend once I DID open it.
If you’re suggesting a Chrono feed is more efficient and you spend less time on because all the news has been consumed, well, then, I totally agree.
I admit I still jump on Facebook. I exclusively use a bookmark that still (now mostly) forces a chronological feed order.
https://www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr
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.
This sounds like a successful efficiency study presented by a horror director.
Yeah, if you were ever unsure where wired stands as a reputable organization, here’s all the evidence you need.
Why would you “get what you need” quicker with a chronological feed? The more engaged with content is what most people are going to the site for, it’s like browsing Lemmy on top vs new, and frankly new is mostly crap.
What I want is to see the new posts of my network. With chronological, I know when I see a previously seen post, that I’m done. With algorithmic, I’m scrolling past tons of posts I’ve seen before, hoping to find a new one every once in a while. And I never know when I’m done, so I frustratingly close the app after a longer time.
I’m much more “engaged” when you hide my needle in a haystack. Simply handing me the needle allows me to grab it and go.
Needle in this case is finding out what my friends are up to
When I look at my subscriptions, I sort by new because it lets me see what I want quicker. Top is filled with old things so I almost never use it. Hot is what I use if not restricting to just subs. Once I’m done looking at what’s new, I’m done. No wasting time on stuff I’ve seen before.
Here’s a different view of the same study: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190383104/new-study-shows-just-how-facebooks-algorithm-shapes-conservative-and-liberal-bub
I think there’s a point to algorithmic feeds but it doesn’t necessarily eliminate the need for a chronological one either.
When I was on Threads poking around, the algorithmic feed was pretty essential in finding mainstream people I used to follow on Twitter.
There just has to be a healthy balance between the two.
Exactly, they can coexist, so I’m not sure why people are so against having both. Content discovery is likely to be be the biggest barrier for entry for new social media platforms, because if you don’t have a reason to stay, why would you? It’s pretty much the primary obstacle to getting people away from Reddit or Twitter and onto an alternative.
I’m the opposite, chronological feed made me use social media even more
as soon as instagram lost the chronological feed I stopped using it, it just made it useless to keep track of what friends and family were doing. I dont care they went to dinner two weeks ago, I might have commented something if they were there today though
Instagram went from a friend feed to “Hey you saw a girl with big boobs this one time, here are 100 other girls with big boobs” very quickly.
That and the insane amount of ads made me quit it.
Is it possible to design a content recommendation algorithm that isn’t game-able? As it stands right now I don’t think that algorithms are fundamentally bad, just that capitalism ruins everything.
If you weighted things by clicks vs time viewing maybe? The true issue is lack of moderation.
Non genuine accounts boost the post for whatever reason. This creates engagement. This is good for the marketer and the platform because they make their money through advertising. They don’t care if marketing firms are using thousands of zombie accounts to boost posts.
The question is what do you use to measure quality?
Engagement is useful but leads to this, obviously. But unless people are constantly rating content they like and don’t like (Reddit was the closest to a robust way to do that), it’s hard to train what content they want.
In the 80’s, Pepsi was gaining quickly on Coca Cola with the Pepsi challenge: having tasters blindly tasting Pepsi versus Coke and choosing which one they liked better. Pepsi won a majority of these. But over the decades, it turns out that consumer preference for a sip of each didn’t necessarily translate over an entire can, or an entire case of cans. When asked to drink 12-20 ounces (350 to 600 ml) of the soft drink, regularly, people behaved differently than what they did for a 2 ounce (60 ml) taste.
Asking consumers to rate things in the moment still suffers from their less reliable momentary ratings of things they experience all day, day after day. Especially of things that tend to be associated with unhealthy addictions.
Yeah, you’re right that even having users rate content is still limited.
I’d argue it almost definitely has to be better than engagement, though. It also has the potential to be less punitive to people who actually are thoughtful with what they like by using the likes as more of a classification problem and less shoving the same trash in everyone’s face.
It’s a hard problem, but sites aren’t even attempting to actually attempt to do anything but tie you to a shitty dopamine loop.
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.
They don’t want satisfaction.
They want addiction.
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).
It is not at the moment. Models are built on the assumption of stability, i.e. that what they are modelling doesn’t change over time, doesn’t evolve. This is clearly untrue, and cheating is a way the environment evolves. Only way to consider that, is to create a on-line continous learning algorithm. Currently this exists and is called reinforcement learning. Main issue is that methods to account for an evolving environment are still under active research. In the sense that methods to address this issue are not yet available.
It is an extremely difficult task tbf
Ok, then what about algorithms that are reasonably difficult to game?
It requires continuous expansive improvements. It is like real world. Building a system robust to frauds works on the short term, but on the mid and long term is impossibile. That is why laws change, evolve, we have governments and so on. Because system reacts to your rules and algorithms, making them less effective.
And these continous expensive improvements are done daily, but it is a difficult job
I don’t think the idea should be to make the algorithm’s ungameable because I feel like that is literally impossible with humans. The first rule of web dev or game dev is that the users are going to find ways to use your site, app, software, or api in ways you never intended regardless of how long you, or even a team of people, think about it.
I’d rather see something where the algorithm is open and pieces of it are voted on by the users and other interested parties. Perhaps let people create and curate their own algorithm’s, something like playlist curation on spotify or youtube but make it as transparent as possible, let people share them and such. Kind of like how playlists are shared.
Isn’t that already how it works, sans the transparency part?
You press “like” on something you like, and the algorithm shows you more that are related to that thing you just liked. Indirectly, you’re curating your feed/algorithm. Or maybe you can look at this from another angle, maybe the “like” button isn’t just for the things you like, but also the things that you don’t particularity like, but would like to see more.
Then there’s other people around you, your Facebook friends, their likes also affect your feed, as you can see the algorithm suggests things that “people that are interested in things you’re interested in, are also interested in”.
Goodhart’s Law: Any statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed on it for control purposes.
Or, to paraphrase, any metric that becomes a target ceases to be a good metric. Ranking algorithms, by their nature, use some sort of quantifiable metric as a heuristic for quality.
I mean, this isn’t that surprising as the algorithm is intended for full dopamine distribution. It’s like a fucking dopamine faucet and we are all just a bunch of apes.
@・ꈊ・@
In a mother news: “drug dealers proved that drug addicts hate not getting their daily dose”
Mix addictive ingredients into food and the consumer will eat more than naturally, but it’s not better for him. Saying “more is better” and confusing “to engage” with “to like” is eval.
Usage time ≠ enjoyment.
But unfortunately more usage time = more ads = more profit
That’s the only thing they really care about.