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!
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.