If we pretend that the only options are:

1) Chronological feed
2) Algorithmic feed where a company chooses the algorithm and objective function

And we pretend that "Share of time is a perfect metric for happiness," then this might make sense.

But... time spent isn't a perfect metric for happiness, and there is another option: 3) Algorithmic feed where the user has more control of the algorithm and objective function.

Eg, chronological *is* an algorithmic feed!🙂🙃

https://www.wired.com/story/meta-just-proved-people-hate-chronological-feeds/

Meta Just Proved People Hate Chronological Feeds

Some social media users and lawmakers say chronological feeds are healthier. A new study found that Facebook and Instagram users who were forced to see time-ranked posts turned to TikTok instead.

WIRED

@mekkaokereke Even collapsing identical repeats/boosts into a single post would help clean up my timeline!

One approach that might work well (in the sense that “work well” means “looks to people like options, not algorithms”) is offer different “sort by”:

  • pure chronological
  • chronological plus boost collapse
  • sort by most boosted in the past (24/48/whatnot) hours
  • same sort, but only for posts originating in people I follow
  • sort by most liked/favorited in the past (24/48….)….

Those are all algorithms, but they’re both simple enough and with enough precedent in other scenarios that most users will know exactly what they should be doing. Which means they won’t be thought of as magic.

@jmelesky @mekkaokereke this would be good, but one more I've always wanted: sort whoever posted the least in the past X time to the top.

I think the main drawback of pure chronological feeds is that less frequent posters get buried. I don't really want any algorithm deciding what posts are good or bad for me, but if I bother following someone, and they only tooted once this week, I want to see it.

@unlofl @jmelesky

🤯 This is brilliant.