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!

  • saigot
    1·
    11 months ago

    I think that’s valid, my point wasn’t that meta should do “best” sorting (it doesnt even make sense without downvotes) but rather there are good algorithms that aren’t just niave chronological order (which i think some people put into a pedestal of being “algorithmless” or pure). I quite like seeing the occasional post from my crazy uncle, but if it was chronological order it would just be a nonstop deluge of his posts with hardly any from the rest of my family.

    Also consider many people use social media for many different things. To me Facebook market place is by far the dominant reason for ever using the platform and pretty much the only reason I still have an account. The sorting for market place shouldn’t be chronological, nor should the comments under it.