Chronological Internet is Not Coming Back
Not long back, Louise Matsakis of Motherboard wrote about her woes with algorithms: "I used to enjoy Instagram. Photos in the feed were displayed in reverse-chronological order. The newest posts were at the top, and the oldest posts at the bottom. It was easy to scroll though. Then, last year, Instagram changed the algorithm. Now, pictures appear in an order I don't understand. A snapshot from a birthday party three days ago is displayed next to a selfie only hours old. Time on Instagram now feels distorted."
But it's not just Instagram you know. There is Facebook (ahem!), Twitter, Tumblr, and recently even Snapchat came on board, much to the chagrin of its frustrated users who went to the extent of signing a Change.org petition calling for its rollback. "What is it with social media and killing chronological order?," wrote one user by the name of Laura Metcalf. "The lack of chronological order is really annoying its no longer in the moment and fun. Now it's stressful to even open the app," wrote another.
Snapchat's radical redesign may have been tough to swallow for many of its passionate users, but it's hardly a surprise in today's algorithmically driven internet. But how much of it is of any real benefit to the user is up for debate, even if the logic sort of makes sense. After all, how else are you going to see the best posts from among hundreds of your friends? Yet the notion of a machine-curated online experience has come under much criticism of late (especially for Facebook, given how News Feed operates), not just because the timelines have become a jumbled mess, but also because all this is done for the sake of boosting engagement on the platform.
Which is why Instagram's announcement today that it's tweaking its feed "to ensure that newer posts are more likely to appear first in feed" rings hollow and does nothing to a fix an already broken system. If anything, it just goes on to show how reluctant these companies are when it comes to adopting reverse chronological order for their feeds, and that they choose to do so in ways that align with their business interests as opposed to ceding control to users, a move that could very well lead to less time spent within these apps. Even worse, there is no way to opt-out of these changes. It's either take it or leave it.
Ultimately it's the users wanting an online experience that's transparent and trustworthy, and not a black box that decides what's good for them, who end up getting a raw deal. "Why is (it) a common business tactic to alienate the base of users that built the platform in an attempt to draw new ones in?," continued Laura in her remark, adding, "It rarely works." You would think a company that designs algorithms which can influence millions of users would know better. I guess it's not.
But it's not just Instagram you know. There is Facebook (ahem!), Twitter, Tumblr, and recently even Snapchat came on board, much to the chagrin of its frustrated users who went to the extent of signing a Change.org petition calling for its rollback. "What is it with social media and killing chronological order?," wrote one user by the name of Laura Metcalf. "The lack of chronological order is really annoying its no longer in the moment and fun. Now it's stressful to even open the app," wrote another.
Snapchat's radical redesign may have been tough to swallow for many of its passionate users, but it's hardly a surprise in today's algorithmically driven internet. But how much of it is of any real benefit to the user is up for debate, even if the logic sort of makes sense. After all, how else are you going to see the best posts from among hundreds of your friends? Yet the notion of a machine-curated online experience has come under much criticism of late (especially for Facebook, given how News Feed operates), not just because the timelines have become a jumbled mess, but also because all this is done for the sake of boosting engagement on the platform.
Which is why Instagram's announcement today that it's tweaking its feed "to ensure that newer posts are more likely to appear first in feed" rings hollow and does nothing to a fix an already broken system. If anything, it just goes on to show how reluctant these companies are when it comes to adopting reverse chronological order for their feeds, and that they choose to do so in ways that align with their business interests as opposed to ceding control to users, a move that could very well lead to less time spent within these apps. Even worse, there is no way to opt-out of these changes. It's either take it or leave it.
Ultimately it's the users wanting an online experience that's transparent and trustworthy, and not a black box that decides what's good for them, who end up getting a raw deal. "Why is (it) a common business tactic to alienate the base of users that built the platform in an attempt to draw new ones in?," continued Laura in her remark, adding, "It rarely works." You would think a company that designs algorithms which can influence millions of users would know better. I guess it's not.
Comments
Post a Comment