Technology

37739 readers

500 users here now

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.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

389

Meta Just Proved People Hate Chronological Feeds (www.wired.com)

submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

139 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sculd@beehaw.org 250 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 54 points 1 year ago

This sounds like a successful efficiency study presented by a horror director.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

Yeah, if you were ever unsure where wired stands as a reputable organization, here's all the evidence you need.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

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

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] alnilam@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

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.