Australia wants social platforms to give users a persistent choice between a personalised feed and one showing only the accounts they follow. The appeal is users see what they choose to see, in the order it was posted, without an algorithm or a ranking system deciding for them. More control for users is a good thing. But a following-only feed also makes emerging causes, organizations or new ideas harder to discover, and that cost does not fall evenly.

The Problem with Chronological Feeds

Following-only feeds works with relationships that already exist. A feed built only from those relationships can show users more of what they already know, and has limited ways of introducing something new. While algorithm ranking has real problems, it is one of few mechanics that pushes an account, an idea or an emerging cause in front of people who have not chosen it yet. Without algorithms, the ways to new audiences depend largely on existing relationships and visibility: being shared by someone the user already knows or follows, being covered by the media or being known well enough to be searched for by name.

Big Voices Have an Advantage

These routes favor organisations that are already large. More followers means more people who might share a post. More recognition could mean more searches and more coverage. Visibility follows and builds on this. Chronological feed adds a second advantage to this, when posts are sorted by time, organisations that publish more often take up more of the timeline. Frequency might not be the only thing that matters, but it matters more than in a algorithm ranked feed. Big brands, elite publishing houses and legacy organizations can produce content constantly. Their follower base itself acts like a distribution channel. 

Emerging causes depend more on discovery

However an emerging cause starts from a different position. Unlike bigger organizations they cannot produce quality content constantly. Most of the people it needs have not even heard of it, and sometimes the idea itself is unfamiliar. Its potential audience sits almost entirely outside its current network, so its growth depends on reaching people who do not yet follow it aka emerging campaigns depend more on discovery. A same design change can affect two organizations types completely differently - in a chronological digital ecosystem, cause driven campaigns that require more discovery, loses more when discovery becomes harder. 

Why this matters beyond individual campaigns?

A cause that can reach only its existing supporters cannot build wider traction. And societies need credible ideas to travel between groups. When new ideas struggle to enter conversations, established voices populate attention and echo chambers become harder to escape. None of this means we should defend opaque algorithms. User choice matters. But control and discovery are different problems, and solving one does not solve the other.

What organizations should look at now?

If platforms offer fewer discovery pathways into newer audiences, “post more” should not be a strategy. Neither should focusing on the measurement of people who are already following or engaging. A more useful starting point is to look at how much of the current reach comes from non-followers, and which routes bring new people into the audience base such as: shares, recommendations, partner accounts, search or press coverage. Then identifying which of those most depend on the algorithmic distribution - those are the ones most exposed when follow-only feed becomes more common. Strong engagement in the existing base now could conceal the fact that the organization is reaching almost nobody new. 

If discovery becomes scarcer, organizations that understand audience growth will have an advantage. The others will become increasingly efficient at talking to themselves.