If you go to a chronological feed, it ends up getting overwhelmed with content from companies, brands, and publishers… Creators get drowned out, and then your friends get drowned out even more… You miss a lot more content … and you spend a lot less time on the platform…
This is correct. A purely chronological feed will be drowned out by whoever posts the most. Creators publishing mass-produced slop will win.
Except that has nothing to do with the Australian draft legislation (if someone has a link to the draft itself, I can’t find it, but this PR statement still covers my point):
Alternatively, users can opt out of personally recommended content in their default feed and see the friends and creators they choose to follow.
A purely chronological feed consisting purely of friends and creators you choose to follow is not a feed that can be drowned out by mass-produced slop and “content from companies, brands, and publishers” because the user chooses who they follow. If a user doesn’t like the content, they can choose not to follow the person/creator. It’s really not that complicated. Heck, this is how the YouTube subscriptions page works (though I use FreeTube configured in the same manner).
As a secondary point, their statement presents the draft as a false dichotomy. This isn’t an “us vs them” thing. It’s an “us and them” thing. The user chooses what they want. Presenting it as the former serves only to invalidate the group that wants the less personalized feed rather than support them.
Anyway, as a non-Australian who doesn’t use any of these services, this doesn’t have much to do with me. It’s just such an obviously fallacious argument against the legislation that I can only assume the quote was taken out of context or something (though I doubt that’s the case).
TL;DR: Instagram chief argues against a strawman
This is correct. A purely chronological feed will be drowned out by whoever posts the most. Creators publishing mass-produced slop will win.
Except that has nothing to do with the Australian draft legislation (if someone has a link to the draft itself, I can’t find it, but this PR statement still covers my point):
A purely chronological feed consisting purely of friends and creators you choose to follow is not a feed that can be drowned out by mass-produced slop and “content from companies, brands, and publishers” because the user chooses who they follow. If a user doesn’t like the content, they can choose not to follow the person/creator. It’s really not that complicated. Heck, this is how the YouTube subscriptions page works (though I use FreeTube configured in the same manner).
As a secondary point, their statement presents the draft as a false dichotomy. This isn’t an “us vs them” thing. It’s an “us and them” thing. The user chooses what they want. Presenting it as the former serves only to invalidate the group that wants the less personalized feed rather than support them.
Anyway, as a non-Australian who doesn’t use any of these services, this doesn’t have much to do with me. It’s just such an obviously fallacious argument against the legislation that I can only assume the quote was taken out of context or something (though I doubt that’s the case).