>Or the simpler explanation is that the chronological timeline isn't actually the preferred setting, outside of a small but vocal minority.

you can justify a lot of things with "the silent majority doesn't mind it". the silent majority is tech-illiterate, and there are a lot of things they are indifferent to. if it wasn't for the loud minority, we'd be advancing into the dystopian future at much faster pace.

>I think the more obvious explanation is that very few people were actually using it according to their analytics, so the switch no longer occupies prime UI/UX real estate.

the overwhelming majority will always use whichever option is the default

>If it was some sort of conspiracy, they would have just killed the feature.

that will eventually happen, and when it does, I'm sure I'll read about how that is a good thing

> Or the simpler explanation is that the chronological timeline isn't actually the preferred setting, outside of a small but vocal minority.

Is this a simple explanation for why the feature automatically turns itself off after a week or two?

> just because the Tweets are ordered differently

This isn't what the feature does. More than half of the content in the algorithmic timeline was not posted or retweeted by someone I follow.

If the feed is strictly chronological, then the user has a better chance of knowing when they've seen everything, and won't come back to the content until more time has passed.

With the algorithmic feed, you could refresh the page at any time and get a different personalized set of posts that make it feel like your feed is more active than it actually is.

> If the chronological timeline is somehow hurting their profitability, why would they offer it at all?

If I recall correctly, this was the default. Then they introduced the semi curated algorithmic as a feature. Then replaced chronological and got a ton of backlash. They've been playing a game of capitulation and direction ever since.

> There's nothing stopping Twitter from inserting the same ads at the same frequency just because the Tweets are ordered differently.

The chronological timeline is your connected accounts + ads. The algorithmic timeline is the same but also some "suggestions." Ostensibly this makes it harder to immediately separate ad from, say, an account your friend follows.

You've mentioned it a couple times - their analytics may support that fewer users are using the chronological sort. I wonder if it's because they are frustrated and moving off to alternative viewing portals to get the feed experience they like.

That’s a possible explanation.

However I’ve heard of very few people that prefer the algorithmic feed on Twitter, might be a bubble effect though.

The big part is time spent I think. I see the same thing with Instagram: I have about 120 accounts that I follow, mostly friends of mine.

I check the feed once a day and after 5 minutes I’m done.

But I also know quite a lot of people that spend hours on Instagrams explore page and with reels.

With your own carefully curated list there is a limited amount of content you can consume, until you inevitably leave the app.

But as you can see with TikTok or Instagram people spend hours on algorithmic feeds.

I agree, I think Twitter’s argument that the Home feed is actually more interesting for most people is accurate.

I myself tend to stick on Home. However, there are times when I want to be on Latest, particularly if there’s an event on or developments are happening at a rapid pace.

The old UI seemed ideal to me. It gave people the choice to choose what their default was. Now, they’ve taken that away… to what end? Force pushing people over to Home who expressly don’t want it probably isn’t going to work.

Companies need to service the vocal minority. This isn't a factory at Ford, they are more than capable and resourced enough to deliver colors other than black.