The Platform Paradox: Why Engagement Isn’t Everything
In my last blog, we discussed the importance of weights in algorithms. But there remains a fundamental problem. Online platforms often fall short of delivering a truly satisfying user experience.
Morten Tromholt’s study at the University of Copenhagen, “The Facebook Experiment: Quitting Facebook Leads to Higher Levels of Well-Being,” reveals that a one-week hiatus from Facebook significantly enhances well-being, especially for heavy and passive users.
Double-Edged Sword of UI Interventions
The study “‘I Just Want to Hack Myself to Not Get Distracted’: Evaluating Design Interventions for Self-Control on Facebook,” by Lyngs et al. at the University of Oxford, demonstrates that UI changes, such as goal reminders and newsfeed removal, can help users maintain focus.
However, these interventions come with trade-offs: persistent reminders may become irritating, and removing the newsfeed can induce a fear of missing out. These findings underscore the challenges of aligning platform designs with user welfare.
Chasing Engagement Ghosts: Can Social Media Design Align with Our True Needs?
Jon Kleinberg (Cornell University), Sendhil Mullainathan (University of Chicago), Manish Raghavan (Harvard University) address this complexity in “The Challenge of Understanding What Users Want: Inconsistent Preferences and Engagement Optimization.” They argue that the ‘two minds’ framework, which distinguishes between impulsive ‘system 1’ and deliberative ‘system 2,’ often leads to choices that misrepresent true preferences.
This discrepancy can cause users to spend excessive time on platforms with little benefit, and it may even lead to sudden platform abandonment after periods of high engagement.
System 1 in the Driver’s Seat?
Their findings also inform UI design considerations, such as autoplay and enforced breaks. If users are genuinely engaged, such features have little impact.
However, if the impulsive nature of system 1 dominates, implementing breaks could help system 2 take control and decide to leave the platform.
When More Isn’t Merrier in the Online Content World
The authors discuss the paradox of content choice.
They consider three forces: 1) more choice leads to higher utility and engagement, as users can select content they prefer; 2) too much choice overwhelms the user, reducing both utility and engagement; and 3) an increase in choices raises the likelihood of system 1 being active, which increases engagement but potentially decreases utility.
Thus, excessive choices might keep system 1 active, raising engagement while undermining true user utility—suggesting that maximizing engagement might not align with maximizing user welfare.
Beyond the Algorithm’s Reach: Designing Platforms for Human Well-being, Not Just Engagement
As we navigate these findings, it becomes clear that maximizing engagement does not guarantee the maximization of user welfare. The question then becomes how platforms can strike the right balance to ensure their content recommendations serve the user’s best interests.
Kleinberg et al.’s research provides us with theoretical framework to answer the question.
