Caitlin Cassidy’s experiment is exactly what this debate needed. While governments argue about whether to force platforms to offer an off switch, she actually found one, tapped it, and lived without her Instagram algorithm for 24 hours.
The results are the most honest picture we have of what “opting out” really buys you. She unfollowed about 100 accounts, watched her new chronological feed run dry in roughly 10 minutes, and hit Instagram’s “End of following” message for the first time in years. In her words, she was “floored and unmoored.”
But here’s the twist: the feed she got back still felt wrong.
“What disturbs me, though, scrolling through a feed that should theoretically be made up of friends and family updating me about nice moments in their lives, is that it still feels hollow and impersonal,” she writes. Most of the people in her feed were using it for self-promotion. The only ones using social media the way it was meant to be used were her mum and her mum’s friends, and their feed was “soothing but also very boring.” By the end of the day she reaches the only conclusion the experiment seems to allow: “Maybe the solution is not to opt out of algorithms but to opt out of social media altogether.”
That is the false choice her experiment exposes.
The off switch exists. The hiding of it is the story
Credit where it’s due: Cassidy found a real feature. Tap the Instagram logo at the top of the home screen and you can limit your feed to the accounts you follow, in chronological order. That is basically what social media looked like in 2012, and it is what the Australian government’s “my feed, my way” reforms want to make unavoidable: a clear, obvious choice for every user, instead of a setting so “little-known” that a reporter had to write a story to explain how to find it.
The case for that reform is exactly what she documents. If the off switch mattered to platforms the way it matters to users, it would not be hidden behind a logo tap and a settings menu. Australians should get the choice, and so should everyone else. Cassidy is right about all of this, and her experiment proves the mechanism works: with the algorithm off, the feed became predictable, finite, and dull.
What her experiment gets right, and where it stops
Her piece settles a few arguments and quietly opens one more:
- The off switch is real, and it is hidden on purpose. The setting exists, but only a devoted user would ever find it. Legislation that makes the choice obvious is a genuine step forward, and we should cheer it.
- Removing the algorithm does not restore a golden age. Ten minutes of content, then “End of following.” The 2012 feed was not a wellness tool; it was just quieter.
- The follower feed is hollow. Self-promotion, brand partnerships, attempts to “go viral.” Her verdict on the people still posting happily: “soothing but also very boring.”
- The algorithmic feed is pleasant and numbing. She loves her animals, her food videos and her reality TV, and she still concludes the experience is “numbing my brain and turning my own thoughts into slop.”
- Her honest conclusion points past the whole debate. “Maybe the solution is not to opt out of algorithms but to opt out of social media altogether.” That is a reasonable response to a false choice, and it is the place where the interesting work begins.
Two feeds, neither of them yours. There is a third option
Look at what both of her feeds have in common. The algorithmic one is chosen by an engagement model tuned to keep her thumb moving. The chronological one is chosen by a follow graph, people she met once and mostly stopped caring about. Either way, the feed is full of other people’s output, chosen by someone or something else. Opting out changes which other people appear. It does not change whose feed it is.
A feed is yours when it runs on what you do. That is the version Topick is built around: you choose topics, from photography to cooking to running, and the feed is a deterministic stream of those topics, no engagement ranking deciding what deserves your attention. You post what you actually made or did, every post is part of a topic, and your streak and your level reflect the hours you put in. When the feed runs out, that is not a bug. You go do the thing, and the feed grows from your own doing.
| Cassidy’s two feeds | Topick |
|---|---|
| Algorithmic: optimized to keep you scrolling | ✓ You choose topics; a deterministic, user-controlled feed |
| Chronological: 10 minutes of content, then “End of following” | ✓ You are the content: every post is something you actually did |
| Follower feed: self-promotion and attempts to “go viral” | ✓ Posts tied to topics and real-life activities |
| Nothing measures whether you are growing | ✓ Levels and streaks track what you actually do |
| Logical end point: opt out of social media altogether | ✓ A feed that keeps your momentum going |
Cassidy’s experiment deserves to be read widely, and not only because it is fun. It makes the algorithm debate concrete: opting out is easy to propose and hard to live with, because neither feed on offer is built around you. Governments are right to make the choice visible. Topick’s job is smaller and more useful, to be a feed worth choosing. Not a rejection of the scroll, but a scroll that builds on what you do, where your momentum creates the challenge and the app simply keeps you going.
Topick is a topic-first social platform where you post what you do and keep your momentum going. Photography, cooking, running, painting, 150+ topics. Every post is something you actually made or did. Every streak turns your hobby into a challenge you set for yourself. Built for iOS and Android, launching soon.