Technology

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.