> Participants who switched from the chronological to the algorithmic feed prioritized a conservative policy agenda over a liberal one by 0.11 s.d., compared with those who remained on the chronological feed (95% CI: 0.02, 0.20; P = 0.016). The experiment also influenced views on the criminal investigations into Trump: those who switched to the algorithmic feed were 0.08 s.d. more likely to consider them completely unacceptable (95% CI: 0.01, 0.16; P = 0.026). This effect is larger and more precisely estimated for aspects of this belief held by a smaller share of participants in the control group (as shown in Supplementary Information Fig. 2.4), indicating that the effect is concentrated among more loyal Trump supporters. Regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for participants initially on the chronological feed, exposure to the algorithmic feed increased pro-Kremlin attitudes by 0.12 s.d. (95% CI: 0.03, 0.21; P = 0.007).
> Participants who switched from the chronological to the algorithmic feed prioritized a conservative policy agenda over a liberal one by 0.11 s.d., compared with those who remained on the chronological feed (95% CI: 0.02, 0.20; P = 0.016). The experiment also influenced views on the criminal investigations into Trump: those who switched to the algorithmic feed were 0.08 s.d. more likely to consider them completely unacceptable (95% CI: 0.01, 0.16; P = 0.026). This effect is larger and more precisely estimated for aspects of this belief held by a smaller share of participants in the control group (as shown in Supplementary Information Fig. 2.4), indicating that the effect is concentrated among more loyal Trump supporters. Regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for participants initially on the chronological feed, exposure to the algorithmic feed increased pro-Kremlin attitudes by 0.12 s.d. (95% CI: 0.03, 0.21; P = 0.007).