In my experience, it is really dependent on how many people you follow in the site and whether you read your whole feed regularly.
If you follow a small group and want to hear everything that they say, then a chronological feed is unbeatable.
However, if you are an occasional user or follow a lot of people or follow lots of people/orgs that you don't know personally, then the algorithmic feed can be better, because in theory, you see interesting posts immediately. (Obviously, depends on how good the algorithm is.)
Unfortunately FB forces you to use the algorithm and actively prevents you from reading back far (posts start repeating, infinite scroll means you lose your place and refreshing sends you a whole different set of posts) which is why I spend about 5% of my Social Media time on FB.
Your second group sounds like people who don't really care what they read, so long as it interests them. Us first-group types join social media primarily to keep in touch with our friends. And then when we find interesting new people online (I have no connection with Andrew other than DW), we want to follow them too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
If you follow a small group and want to hear everything that they say, then a chronological feed is unbeatable.
However, if you are an occasional user or follow a lot of people or follow lots of people/orgs that you don't know personally, then the algorithmic feed can be better, because in theory, you see interesting posts immediately. (Obviously, depends on how good the algorithm is.)
Unfortunately FB forces you to use the algorithm and actively prevents you from reading back far (posts start repeating, infinite scroll means you lose your place and refreshing sends you a whole different set of posts) which is why I spend about 5% of my Social Media time on FB.
no subject