Social networks mostly have two different kinds of feeds: one that's a simple reverse chronological listing of posts from people you follow, and another that's controlled by an algorithm. On Twitter, users are forever complaining that the platform switches them to the algorithm without asking, and I imagine Facebook is the same.
But why? A new bit of research answers that question:
We found that users in the Chronological Feed group spent dramatically less time on Facebook....The average respondent in the Algorithmic Feed group spent 73% more time each day on average compared with US monthly active users, and for those in the Chronological Feed group, this value reduced to 37% more.
....On Facebook, users in the Algorithmic Feed group liked an average of 6.7% of the content to which they were exposed, whereas those in the Chronological Feed group liked 3.1% on average.
Users who are on Facebook's algorithmic feed are far more engaged than those on the chronological feed. You might not like to hear that, but it turns out the algorithm really does know what you like. Those on the algorithmic feed spend more time on Facebook—which means more advertising dollars—and leave likes and comments at about double the rate of those on the chronological feed.
There are also differences in the type of posts generated by the feeds, but they're surprisingly small. And neither feed makes any difference to things like news knowledge or political polarization.
So that's it. Social media companies want you on their algorithmic feed because it keeps you engaged and makes them more money. Nothing complicated about it.
Hey everybody, why not consider abandoning the feed? Bookmark accounts you want to follow and - get this, it's not too hard - click on the ones you are interested in as appropriate (e.g sports accounts when the Big Game is being played, or a set of lawyers when Trump gets indicted). You *will* miss some posts, but typically those you've bookmarked will re-post something from a like-minded user that you've bookmarked but not explicitly accessed.
A feed is a mix of topical entities that are interlaced. Who wants to have posts about Ukraine interlaced with posts about the Barbie movie? Both have merit, but read one topic area at a time via the bookmark approach.
I suspect the feed is more useful to users on cellphones/tablets. Well, that's your choice of a device.
Take for instance a young female teen. She likes to keep up with what her online "peers" are doing. The algorithm wants to keep her engaged and has figured out that she likes to look at fashions which happen to be modeled by very skinny, sexy young women, shot at exotic locations with amazing makeup.
After a while, that's all she gets: glamour shots of attractive young women in exotic locations with fashion model bodies posing with amazing clothes and stunning makeup, exceptionally lit by white reflectors and selected color temperature LED lighting.
It's not showing her the breadth of posts of people she's following; she's now seeing a particular type of post from across all users who might be loosely linked to her by way of someone she's following, who is following someone else with similar "interests".
Is that what you're saying is NBD? ¯\(°_o)/¯
It takes some end-user sophistication not to fall into a trap of pigeon-holing yourself. I don't think most people are capable of that.
Real on the web home based work to make more than $14k. Last month I made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and procuring from this are just awesome.
For more detail visit the given interface.. http://incomebyus.blogspot.com
You might not like to hear that, but it turns out the algorithm really does know what you like.
The algorithm seems to think I like Trump properties, Matt Walsh, and numerous other postings of insane, culture-warrior crap. There's obviously something else going on than the algorithm showing me what I "like."
But that's not true that that's what "people" want! Not if I'm a person.
I didn't know about algorithmic feeds when I joined FB. I wound up missing posts I wanted to see by friends who didn't post frequently. They had personal news I wanted to know about - I didn't see it. I wound up getting an add-on that forces a chronological feed, and now I'm happy.
The secret is to limit your reading to people you actually want to read. If your offline friends turn out to be boring oversharers or wingnut ranters online, stop following them.
And what do you get from this algorithm? News you can use? Entertainment you like? Crap intended to annoy and enrage you?
This is all available on the regular internet. And without the evil.
I take it then there is a third option, which is what, No Feed?
"You might not like to hear that, but it turns out the algorithm really does know what you like."
I like chocolate ice cream, and my server might figure that out, but that doesn't mean I want them bringing me a bowl of chocolate ice cream every few minutes while I'm sitting in the restaurant.
P.S. What's good for the company isn't necessarily what's good for the consumer.
Or society at large.
What one engages with, and what one likes, are not the same thing.
I have two big problems with an algo feed: First, it skips things I wanted to see. Posts from family members, for pete's sake. (Yes, maybe FB has tools for this, but there are still problems).
Second, it shows me crap I didn't want to see, because reasons. Those reasons might be that it's clickbait, that someone paid them, or that it's wrong about what I like. Or maybe it's just about hate clicking.
I like suggestions from an algorithm. YouTube does this, I've found some really great stuff in the suggestions down the right side. It will also chain to the "next" thing it has chosen for me, but lets me stop that. (I always stop it).
Amazon also makes suggestions: (Would you also like this product?). I don't mind that either. Facebook could do this, while also letting me look at and dismiss things as "I've read that". Which is what an RSS reader would do, and of course, is why the social media companies hate this.
I have to click on All Feeds every time to get away from the algorithm. The times I've forgotten have led to about 10 minutes of scrolling wondering why there's so much garbage being posted. Twitter seems to let me choose what I want without the involuntary switching.
Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe this isn't causal? Maybe people who are determined to not be a mindless Facebook addict are more likely to prefer the chronological feed? Maybe it's not that the chronological feed *causes* less engagement, it's that the people using the chronological feed *don't want to be that engaged*?
More like it feeds dependency on common markers, playing on all the latest social psychological insights into manipulation. People actually want to see chronological updates so they can balance their time, rather than be sucked into soap opera style obsession, if given the actual choice (which seems evident to me by this very research...absent manipulation, people choose to pull not be pushed).