Adam Mosseri has a message for regulators and critics who want to tear down algorithmic feeds: be careful what you wish for. Speaking to reporters in Australia this week, the Instagram chief argued that removing the platform’s recommendation engine would leave users staring at a far less compelling version of the app. It’s a familiar defense from Big Tech, but Mosseri framed it less as a corporate talking point and more as a simple product reality.
The Core Argument: Algorithms Aren’t Going Anywhere
Mosseri’s stance is straightforward. If Instagram reverted to a strictly chronological feed, users would see fewer posts they actually care about. That’s because the average account follows hundreds of people, brands, and creators, and not all of that content is equally interesting at any given moment. An algorithmic sort, in theory, surfaces the stuff you’re most likely to engage with right now.
Critics see it differently. They argue that algorithmic curation amplifies outrage, distorts attention, and traps users in filter bubbles. Australia has been at the forefront of these debates, with its eSafety Commissioner and various parliamentary committees scrutinizing how social platforms shape public discourse. Mosseri’s visit wasn’t just a casual stopover; it was part damage control, part education tour.
Why Chronological Feeds Fall Short
Picture your Instagram following list as a giant, noisy party. You’ve got close friends, meme accounts, that one bakery you followed three years ago, and a handful of influencers you barely remember. A chronological feed is like walking into that party and listening to whoever speaks loudest first. An algorithmic feed is like having a friend whisper, hey, your sister just posted something important.
That analogy isn’t perfect, but it captures the tension. Algorithms don’t just rank content; they infer intent, context, and relationships. Instagram’s system weighs signals like how often you interact with an account, how fresh a post is, and how likely you are to comment or share. Remove that layer, and you’re left with a raw, unfiltered stream that can feel chaotic rather than personal.
The Business Case Behind the Defense
Let’s not pretend this is pure altruism. Instagram’s parent company, Meta, generates the bulk of its revenue through advertising, and algorithmic feeds keep users scrolling longer. More time in app means more ad impressions, more data, and more opportunities to convert attention into dollars. Mosseri knows this, and so do regulators.
But there’s a subtler point here. If Instagram switched to a reverse-chronological feed tomorrow, many users would likely spend less time on the platform. That’s not just bad for Meta’s bottom line; it’s also bad for creators who depend on reach to build audiences and income. The algorithm, flawed as it may be, acts as a distribution engine for people who don’t have millions of followers.
What Regulators Might Do Next
Australia has already passed laws forcing tech giants to pay for news content, and it’s exploring tougher rules around online safety and recommendation systems. Mosseri’s comments seem designed to preempt any mandate that would require Instagram to offer a purely chronological option by default. The company already lets users switch to a chronological feed, but it’s buried in settings and rarely used.
Would forcing that option change behavior? Possibly. Would it improve user well-being? That’s harder to prove. Research on algorithmic feeds and mental health is mixed, with some studies pointing to harm and others showing minimal effects. The truth is probably messy, contextual, and resistant to simple policy fixes.
A Personal Take: Algorithms Are Mirrors, Not Monsters
Here’s the thing. Algorithms don’t exist in a vacuum. They reflect the choices we make, the accounts we follow, and the content we tap, like, and share. If your feed feels toxic, it’s often because you’ve fed it toxic inputs. That doesn’t absolve platforms of responsibility, but it does complicate the narrative that algorithms are solely to blame.
Mosseri’s warning, then, isn’t just a defense of Instagram’s business model. It’s a reminder that engagement is a two-way street. Users want relevance, creators want reach, and platforms want revenue. Any attempt to eliminate algorithms has to reckon with all three forces at once.
The Road Ahead: Transparency Over Elimination
Instead of scrapping recommendation engines, the more practical path may be demanding transparency. Let researchers audit the systems. Give users clearer controls over what they see and why. Require platforms to explain, in plain language, how ranking works. That won’t satisfy everyone, but it beats pretending we can turn back the clock to 2010.
Mosseri’s Australian tour probably won’t change many minds in Canberra. But it does signal that Meta is willing to engage, however reluctantly, with the growing global push for algorithmic accountability. The next few years will test whether that engagement leads to real change or just more polished PR.
As for Instagram’s feed, don’t expect it to go chronological by default anytime soon. The algorithm is too deeply woven into the product, the business, and the culture. The debate isn’t about whether to keep it; it’s about how to make it less opaque, less exploitative, and more responsive to the people who use it every day.
