Internal documents show Facebook defends algorithmic ranking because its data suggests that its algorithm knows what users want better than they do themselves
Jeff Jarvis generously gave me support for the idea of using rivers in news orgs. Tweets: Jeff Jarvis / @jeffjarvis : For years, @davewiner has been begging newspapers to provide a “river of news”—that is, a feed of news without the ranking of editors (read: human algorithms). They steadfastly refuse. Why Facebook won't let you control your own news feed https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Will Oremus / @willoremus : @noUpside i tend to agree it doesn't solve a whole lot. less worried about the adversarial potential bc i think users adapt to reverse chron over time by being more choosy about who they follow, mute, relegate to lists etc. Drew Breunig / @dbreunig : I think nearly all parties (regulators, users, and social networks themselves) would strongly benefit from making a reverse-date-ordered feed option available to users (as Twitter & Reddit do). I think this is a no-brainer defensive maneuver for Facebook. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Will Oremus / @willoremus : @Klonick @KevinBankston If even you, who study Facebook for a living, just learned about this setting's existence, does that amount to FB meaningfully giving users control? Especially when FB only honors it for a single session so you have to remember to do it every time? And the story explains why. Juan Ortiz Freuler / @juanof9 : @WillOremus @noUpside Indeed. Also, I wouldn't even say its about “giving users more agency over their information diet” (just) for the sake of user autonomy, but an easy way to limit the breadth of power exercised by the companies, reducing the control they have over our infosphere. Renee DiResta / @noupside : @WillOremus This is one of those things where I support users having choice - some of the proposals around middleware feed rankings and experiments like Project Gobo are also interesting - but am not entirely sure what problem it's solving. @rsbutner : I'm extremely standoffish on the notion of regulating algorithms as currently discussed - largely because these fights are fundamentally about moderation. AI transparency is also often a non-starter. But a better option would be giving users more choice in shaping their feeds. https://twitter.com/... Renee DiResta / @noupside : @WillOremus Reverse chronological as an ordering is not very enjoyable. Also, as far as adversarial adaptation, it incentivizes high frequency spammy posting from pages, people, etc. Kate Klonick / @klonick : @KevinBankston @WillOremus Yes. Just recently learned this and have updated my talking points. It's an important point. Better question: why don't users know about it? And if they do, why don't they use it? Mark Little / @marklittlenews : Pity we get presented with this binary choice - turning the algorithm on or off - rather than more agency over how the algorithm shapes our news feed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Justin Hendrix / @justinhendrix : (ASIDE: I make a shoutout to @WillOremus in the podcast for this piece, which puts the Filter Bubble Transparency Act in context with reporting on experiments inside Facebook to alter the news feed ranking algorithm): https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... @pleasesaveour : Imagine having a choice! A bill introduced in the House of Representatives this week would require social media companies to offer a version of their services that doesn't rely on opaque algorithms to decide what users see. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Senator Chris Larson / @senchrislarson : The internal research is clear: Facebook thinks they know what you want to see better than you do. They're terrified that if you saw an unranked news feed, you'd spend less time on their site, and they'd sell fewer ads. YOU are the product. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Kevin Bankston / @kevinbankston : Yet another inaccurate headline from a @WillOremus story. Takes 15 paragraphs to get to fact that FB actually *does* offer users a chronological timeline. If the issue is you want a permanent setting, say that at the beginning, but this is just misleading. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Will Oremus / @willoremus : A new bill would force social networks to let users turn off their ranking algorithms for good. Drawing on internal research, some previously unreported, I wrote about how Facebook has experimented with giving us that power—and decided against it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Mere Smith / @evilgalprods : “Without an algorithm deciding which posts to show at the top of users' feeds,” concluded the report's author, whose name was redacted, “Facebook would probably be shrinking.” https://twitter.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
The internal documents land after a long arc of Facebook testing — and walking back — less-ranked feeds: a six-country test that moved non-promoted Page posts to a secondary feed cut media engagement, and former employees later described News Feed experiments tweaked to favor right-leaning outlets. Alongside that, Zuckerberg and other executives shelved internal research on the platform's polarizing effect, and CrowdTangle-based engagement reporting like Kevin Roose's top-stories tweets made the News Feed team defensive about what its ranking actually surfaces.
What's new here is the stated rationale: Facebook's own data, per the documents, shows the algorithm predicting user preferences better than users themselves — the company's justification for refusing a permanent unranked option. That puts Dave Winer and Jeff Jarvis's long-running 'river of news' argument, and the trust-ranking survey design questions raised back in 2018, directly against a paternalism defense rather than a technical one.
First-order effects
- Users are left without a durable reverse-chronological setting, keeping publishers' reach subject to ranking decisions they cannot opt out of — the same lever the six-country test showed can cut media engagement.
- Facebook's defense now rests on an explicit claim that its data knows user preferences better than users do, a position it will have to defend to the House members weighing the Filter Bubble Transparency Act.
Second-order effects
- Twitter and Reddit, named in the coverage, gain a differentiation opening by offering chronological feeds as the user-control alternative Facebook declines to provide.
- Regulators pushing interface-choice legislation get a concrete exhibit: internal documents arguing against user control, strengthening the case that ranking transparency needs to be mandated rather than volunteered.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, feed ranking consolidates as the platform's core product decision — with distribution power, and the polarizing outcomes its own shelved research documented, concentrated in the algorithm rather than shared with users or publishers.
- The paternalism defense sets a template other ranked platforms can cite, making user-control mandates — not content moderation — the likelier front where platform interface governance gets legislated.
The trend: Platforms are treating feed ranking as proprietary product IP rather than a user setting, pushing the fight over user control from product menus into legislation.