I mean ... it's lies.
We all know it's lies.
They want the algorithm because the algorithm lets them funnel users toward their real customers: advertisers.
Never mind that every other social media site is presently failing, surely if we do the same thing, it'll work this time.
Meanwhile Google snickers to itself in the corner like Lucy setting up the football.
Annie is definitely right that algorithmic timelines are intrinsically, dramatically more advertiser-friendly in a number of ways, but that's not the whole story. There are two other effects of an algorithmic timeline that are very relevant here:
- It makes a user's feed functionally endless, while remaining at least somewhat relevant to their interests.
- It gives users who are new to the platform a way to find new people to follow who are at least somewhat relevant to their interests.
Both of these effects are highly user-visible, the first for invested users who just want to engage with the platform more and the second for new users who want to get a sense of what the platform is like. As a consequence of years of algorithmization of the hegemonic social media platforms, they're also firm user expectations among the broad suite of people who, unlike you and me, don't have a principled vendetta against algorithmic timelines as a concept.
Users coming to Cohost absolutely do complain about these things. Despite my strong antipathy towards algorithmic timelines, I have personally complained about how difficult it is to just get more good Cohost posts when I'm sitting around with nothing to do and I've exhausted my timeline. Cohost has made the principled choice not to add an algorithm despite the fact that it would probably be a net positive for short-term growth, and I salute that with all my heart. But it's important to understand that the decision to go algorithmic looks very attractive even from a user-focused perspective when you're mostly listening to feedback from new users who are used to other algorithmic websites.
