this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
398 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37742 readers
502 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
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
398
Meta Just Proved People Hate Chronological Feeds (www.wired.com)
submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
130 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
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d argue it almost definitely has to be better than engagement, though.

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.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They don't want satisfaction.

They want addiction.

[–] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

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).