Meta Just Proved People Hate Chronological Feeds
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!
Using engagement for metric will ofc render algorithmic feed "better", i.e. addictive. Their value is not about mental wellbeing.
yep note that it didn't measure addiction or how much screen time in a day or anything, the only metric is "more is better", which ask anyone and they'll say it's the opposite
That's true but did anyone think Meta cared about mental well-being? They're a company, their only goal is to make money.
The fact that they switched to a different algorithmic feed instead of reducing use time indicates that it's a problem that needs legislation to address, since it will not be in any individual company's interest to stop.
I found that back in the old days of Facebook (pre-enshitification, or at least full steam enshitification) I could log in, catch up on what all my distant relatives and friends were up to, leave some comments, maybe post something myself, and log out in around 10-15 minutes max. Then they started "improving" things, and suddenly there was "engaging" content, and it took at least ½ an hour.
I think it makes sense that from Facebook's perspective, a chronological feed is worse.
Having said that, some people post more than others, so I do appreciate using the Hot and Active sorts for Lemmy in addition to Top - Day. It's a feature I miss from Mastodon. There is a headline bot that I like following, to catch the recent headlines, and the weather. Problem is that something like ¼ of my feed can just be the bot, and yesterday's headlines aren't news anymore, I'm more interested in the ongoing discussion. So I do appreciate the non-chronological sorts, when they make things better for me, and not a corporation's bottom line.
Yep, I basically stopped using Facebook when it changed away from that. It also changed in other ways, in that people would be posting about politics and memes instead of just life updates and holiday pictures.
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.
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.
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.
Less engagement is exactly what I would want. Show me my new chronological content and then I'll get the hell out of there.
Yep, i like knowing i have at least seen everything new. But, its bad for business to let the user leave when they are all caught up
But shareholders need to eat! The pushers need to get you addicted to make money!
From Facebook point of view, then your engagement is low. Low engagement = less ad views = they make less money
So they need to maximize doom scrolling. Turn off your brain and scroll for a couple hours with stuff the algorithm choose for you, thanks
This.
The headline is kind of awful - users finding satiation and logging off to do something else is not a sign that users had an unsatisfactory or suboptimal experience. Maybe they actually enjoy the experience more.
But it's not optimizing for Meta's business goals.
"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
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.
In a mother news: "drug dealers proved that drug addicts hate not getting their daily dose"
@・ꈊ・@
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)
Usage time ≠ enjoyment.
But unfortunately more usage time = more ads = more profit
That’s the only thing they really care about.
Prefer is weasel language. The utility function they are using is if a User stays on the platform, while the user utility function may be simply - Did I get updates on everything I care about?
Giving users agency over their feed is empowering, sure some people may want to be stuck in a never-ending loop of content - and thats fine for them, but the option for someone to see the most relevant posts from their subscribed communities/friends in a quick fashion is important.
I'm excited to see more user configurable agency in the fediverse. Imagine you have 100 friends, a few rarely post, a few post every 5 minutes, and everyone else in between. If my goal is to stay updated with all 100 friends, but in 10 minute a day increments then I want a agent that shows me the top content uniformly distributed across all 100 of my contacts, such that I see the one post from the introvert rather then the 95 shit posts from the extrovert drowning out that content (the influencer/engagement enshitification cycle).
The same applies to lemmy communities, and while our feed algorithms are not there yet, I'm excite to see development continue.
Yep, exactly. With a chronological feed, I can scroll until I know I'm caught up. The algorithmic feed keeps throwing stuff at you and you're never 'caught up'. So yeah, great for engagement, but they didn't actually ask the users how they felt about it.
Agreed. Chronological is a good first step. Lemmy devs - Don't stop there! Chronological isn't the be all end all of feeds. For most people I think they would want Chronological feeds, but sampled across all their subscriptions/friends.
I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of recommendation algorithm, but it should be in a separate section. Especially for new users it's hard to find people/lemmits to follow, so it would be useful for that.
Disappointed with Wired writing totally wrong title. Meta didn't prove anything. It was a claim, not a proof.
Company study confirms what company wants you to believe. More at 11.
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.
This is a non-issue. Provide the chronological feed and let people choose how they want to consume their content.
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
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.
I wouldn't want to be stuck with ether one. Sort options. Let me choose how to sort my feed, whenever I want to. Sometimes I scroll thru hot, sometimes I'm in new, sometimes I use both in the same session. There's no reason to lock it to one or the other permanently.
Indeed. It's also nice how transparent the algorithms here are, we have access to the source code and documentation so we all know exactly how they work.
Yes I always want the option. I'm fine with an algorithm feed when I'm randomly checking in, but I really prefer chronological when an event is happening for instance and I want to see people's most recent takes.
People hate exercise, too. Not doing it will shorten their lives, but they hate it.
ITT: tech people and power users struggle to understand that the masses use devices and services differently than they do.
Worth keeping in mind that Facebook has manipulated data before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot\_to\_video#Facebook\_metrics\_controversy
Not sure what you think is manipulated here. It's pretty logical that algorithmically curated feeds are going to lead to higher engagement.
Facebook want enraged users, enraged users are engaged users. They don't care about mental health or enjoyment, just how long you stay on Facebook.
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.
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.
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".
So basically the algorithm feeds an unhealthy addiction. And in no moment the study even tries to contradict the main concerns against algorithm-based sorting: lack of transparency, unhealthiness, bubbling, and feeding into dichotomies like "you like apples, so YOU'RE A BANANA HATER!".
Better approaches put power on the hands of the users. For example, tagging content, or sorting it into communities. Perhaps not surprisingly it's how Mastodon and Lemmy do it, respectively.
There's also the matter of quality, not just personal preferences; this sort of thing does require an algorithm, but there's nothing preventing it from being simple, customisable, and open, so users know exactly why they're being shown something instead of something else.
People don't hate it. Facebook and its shareholders hate it because it means less earnings.
Because there is no endless content. You will eventually reach the end of your feed, close your browser and go to bed, sleeping well and staying healthy.
But of course Meta prefers you doomscrolling through the entire night and feeling like shit afterwards. Just one more ad bro...
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.
How about you give people the choice?
The best thing about reddit/Lemmy is you can sort content by new, hot, controversial, etc. Depending on what you're in the mood to view.
I'm pretty sure you can actually do that with FB/IG too, most just don't bother
Instagram, facebook and threads all have chronological feeds they are just hidden
Total agreement from me! I like being able to change my sort.
Less engagement doesn't mean dislike.
That said I do think people get a little too excited about chronological order. I'm fine with any transparent algorithm, I think the old reddit "best" algorithm thatthe xkcd guy made is still a very good way to order comments and I liked the Q&A sort method in specific cases.
The xkcd guy made that?
I slightly mis-remembered apparently, he introduced the idea to reddit and was a heavy heavy advocate for it, but I he didn't come up with it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100115155608/http://blog.reddit.com/2009/10/reddits-new-comment-sorting-system.html
So is there a Lemmy/kbin equivalent?
Hmm... 2008... when did Reddit stop being OpenSource?
Yep! The Reddit version, at least. Dunno if the Lemmy/Kbin sorts are the same or not.
Before that, it was sorted by top. I think subreddits were top/day, and comments were top/all time. Frontpage was top/day for all the subreddits you were subscribed to (or top/day for a selection of "default" subreddits if you didn't have an account).
Do you have a source for this? That's interesting but I can't find the origin of this story.
Best I could find is here, which is an article by Randall Munroe (the xkcd artist), and states:
This blog post links to another wayback machine page (thank you archive.org!) here, which explains the sorting algorithm and states it's original author:
https://web.archive.org/web/20091210094533/http://blog.reddit.com/2009/10/reddits-new-comment-sorting-system.html
@Sproux for you as well.
I would also like a source for this, thats really cool.
I mis-remembered apparently, he was just a heavy heavy advocate for it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100115155608/http://blog.reddit.com/2009/10/reddits-new-comment-sorting-system.html
In Facebook, where I'm following family members and news sites, is where I'd want chronological feed the most. I don't want the "best" of my family's posts from one week 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.
I'm sorry, but those "suggestions" sound wrong - a chronological feed exposes users to untrustworthy content. The point is an algorithmic feed is unknown manipulation UNLESS the algorithm is known and published. Engaging less is also NOT a bad thing at all, unless you are the platform itself. The inference is that an algorithm will expose users to less political and untrustworthy content? Well, certainly not if the platform wants to generate continuous engagement through provocation and the creation of outrage.
But OK, it is an experiment by Meta, so let's just leave it at that.
We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.
But in all seriousness, this feels like the chronological feed given to users was just a straw man intended to make their algorithm look better. Also the claim in the article that Meta's algorithm does not impact users politics is completely ridiculous and not at all supported by a study like this.
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.
I think it is exactly how people are behaving. And I can even recall witnessing many people first hand who flip a newspaper to the sports section. Never learning anything about science news, medical news, unless it's some kind of social column about a diet.
People wanting to cut out and block things they don't want to read in a newspaper is what I consider the "default behavior" of most of humanity. No surprise they do not care about the news their friends share. An intelligent computer system that filters out (based on topic/content study) what they don't want to see before-hand is always going to be popular with such people.
“One of the effects of living with electric information is that we live habitually in a state of information overload. There's always more than you can cope with.” — Marshall McLuhan.
Accidentally deleted my comment instead of saving edits. Here it is again.
I favor OP’s perspective, but that’s because I sub to/follow the stuff I find interesting so I can ignore everything else. I already “made” my own algorithm by only following the stuff I care about, now show it to me chronologically instead of according to your algorithm (because honestly, either your algorithm is optimized for engagement and shows tons of ragebait because it gets engagement and it gets me mad, or it’s actually good and I spend more time online than I wanted to and feel bad. Yes, I know not being able to just cut myself off is a problem, but there’s something to be said for engineering addictive algorithms too).
My experience with algorithms and “for you” is algorithms shoving ragebait in my face and me not always being able to resist clicking. Content delivery algorithms have not been good to me, which heavily influences my view.
I favor OP’s perspective, but that’s because I sub to/follow the stuff I find interesting so I can ignore everything else. I already “made” my own algorithm by only following the stuff I care about, now show it to me chronologically instead of jamming in the stuff you think I’ll like (because honestly, either your algorithm is optimized for engagement and shows tons of ragebait because it gets engagement, or it’s good and I spend more time online than I wanted to and feel bad. Yes, I know not being able to just cut myself off is a problem, but there’s something to be said for engineering addictive algorithms too).
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 guess I'm a minority because I mostly stopped using Facebook after they got rid of chronological feeds because that's all I wanted.
Yeah I was gonna say, this is flawed in that they've been non-chronological for a while of course the people still using it like it.
They brought it back recently and made me use facebook even more
And that is the problem for the commercial platforms. They don't want you to leave, they don't want you to "be done", they want you reading and engaging as much as they can because that's part of what they sell to advertisers.
it's because they aren't talking about users, it's shareholders. shareholders don't stand to gain near as much ad revenue from the endless algorithm induced scrolling. executives and shareholders hate chronological feeds, not people
How much additional shit did Facebook push to the users feeds though? People are engaging less because Facebook has added a million ads and a billion posts from people and groups you never agreed to follow. Facebook can't be trusted for anything. They'll game any study to support whatever outcome they wanted in the first place. It's run by a sociopathic, lying, thief.
I also feel like a lot of the value of chronological is lost if I think it's algorithmic recommendations. If I don't know I'm browsing the latest? I'll likely just think the algorithm is serving up some garbage. Especially somewhere like Facebook, where people haven't really been curating their feed for years, just... following whoever to be polite and letting the algorithm take care of it.
This probably has a kernel of truth. Someone just posted how they hate that Mastodon doesn't do trending posts and instead only has chronological. They said they found it pointless. I personally disagree and the reason I say there's only a kernel of truth is that we shouldn't view addiction as the best or most desired end state.
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
The actual problem is that they think they should just force one or the other on us. Give us a choice to sort our feed and we'll figure out what we like best.
But then people can choose the option that does not have them scrolling for hours. Which means less time and less views on the platform. Why would they give you that option?
Goes to show I am getting tired. Why didn't I think of that. Ofcourse meta wants to keep you on their platform as long as possible. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
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
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.
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.
I think there's a time and a place for algorithmic feeds. When it comes to Facebook i personally think it makes sense to have a way of filtering the important things first, based on who you interact with. It's a social network in the definitive sense; we care about some people more than others depending on where in the network they are. However we've seen how things go when Facebook use it with pages/news stories (which is really concerning).
For things like Twitter, I want chronological. It's a real time platform based on sharing information across a larger audience. Its use in breaking news makes timing important. It's largely gone to shit now because Musk, but in its heyday anyway.
Ideally there should always be a choice, or at least some transparency around how the algorithms work. That way everyone can choose what works for them based on how they use the platform.
I agree, I don't think it's accurate to say engagement was less. If I want to see what is new with my friends and I can quickly see everything in just a few swipes instead of swiping w For hours to see if I can see something new it will cause me to spend less time on the platform, but I'll enjoy it more because I can spend more time doing things with them in person.
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 aint on facebook or instagram, by chronological do they mean followed accounts only? Cus if chronological for followed accounts is showing more political, less trustworthy content, that's just what those people are interested in apparently.
More for them and less for me then. I enjoy my Subscribed + New feed and don't bother with much else.
Completely believable.
I do "hot day" for a page or 2... then i revert to new. This way i don't miss the "big" items.
I definitely prefer the new thread view overall.