Can someone who understands the economics better than I do explain why nudging users to "For You" instead of following is somehow a better business model for these services? I mean, I assume that's the explanation.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/25/23807340/threads-following-feed-for-you-default-instagram-meta
@annmlipton when we choose to follow somebody, it is a very conscious decision. However, when we consume content, we are less conscious of our choices.
YouTube, Facebook and others have realized, if we only see content we have deliberately subscribed to, we may or may not see content that keeps us on the platform.
1/2 (…)
@annmlipton However, when we see content they have selected for us using an algorithm, they can serve all the stupid, easily digestible, popular content, which we would never consciously subscribe to, but which we are prone to click on when it is available.
The result is, we spend more time consuming content, and they make more money, and the entire world spends more energy and time on stupid content conception.
This is why I am on Mastodon and not spending my days on Twitter.
2/2
@randahl So it's just they think it'll mean more time spent? I mean I get that as a default but it seems strange to continually force on people who don't want it. Like, for me personally, it's a great way to get me to spend less time bc I find nonchron to be very off-putting.
@annmlipton @randahl On the contrary, they've done internal studies that show people prefer the recommended content (they scroll slower on the recommended feed than they do on the chronological feed)
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/27/when-facebook-turned-off-news-feed-algorithm-it-made-everyones-experience-worse-made-facebook-more-money/
