Instagram head Adam Mosseri says engagement can fall by as much as half when users replace the platform's ranked recommendations with a chronological feed, adding a new data point to Australia's debate over mandatory controls for social-media algorithms.
Mosseri made the comments during an Australian press briefing as the country consults on legislation that would require platforms to prompt people to turn ranking systems off. He said satisfaction also declines sharply and argued that time-ordered feeds can become dominated by companies, brands and publishers that post frequently. Users may consequently miss content from people they care about and spend less time in the application.
The statement puts two different measures of a social platform's value in tension. Instagram treats engagement and time spent as indicators that its ranking system is helping users find relevant material. Supporters of stricter platform regulation may see lower usage as a desired result if recommendation systems encourage excessive consumption. A 50% engagement decline establishes that feed design substantially changes behaviour, but it does not by itself determine whether users are better or worse off.
Australia's proposal focuses on how the choice is presented. Instagram already offers chronological viewing, but users must select it rather than having it remain as the persistent default. The contemplated rule would require a prompt, making the option more visible instead of leaving people to locate it in settings or menus.
Mosseri has separately advocated giving users more control over their algorithms. That leaves less disagreement over whether customisation should exist than over who initiates it and how prominent the off switch should be. Platform design can strongly influence whether people exercise an available choice, particularly when a default is restored between sessions.
There is also a practical problem with a purely chronological feed. Professional accounts often publish at much higher volume than individuals, so sorting only by time can fill a feed with commercial material. Ranking can suppress repetition and surface older posts from friends, but it also gives the platform broad discretion over attention. The present behaviour of high-volume publishers was shaped in part by years of competition within ranked feeds, making a clean comparison difficult.
European regulation already requires very large platforms to offer a non-profiling feed option under the Digital Services Act. Adoption has reportedly been limited. That could indicate weak demand, poor visibility or both; Mosseri's engagement figure does not distinguish among those explanations.
The unresolved question is what metric regulators should prioritise. Engagement, satisfaction, wellbeing and later regret measure different aspects of the experience. Mosseri's figure supports the claim that ranking keeps people active, but the report says he did not provide comparable wellbeing results. Australia's consultation will ultimately have to decide whether easy access to a less engaging feed is a consumer choice worth requiring, regardless of its effect on platform usage.
