Any effort by social media companies to limit the amount of fake news, conspiracy theories, and conflict on their platforms will inevitably backfire because it will reduce their engagement, and thus their bottom line.

Unfortunately, competitors to these platforms have the same problem. If you offer a toned-down, outrage-free version of Twitter, then people will inevitably use it less than Twitter.

I find Mastodon much less outrage-prone than Twitter, which to me is a virtue. But it also means I had to make a deliberate effort to use Twitter less and use Mastodon more. (And eventually, to quit Twitter entirely.)

On Twitter, it's easy to get lost in a stream of hot takes, bickering, and drama. Whereas on Mastodon, I often scroll to the end of my timeline and say, "Huh. I'm all caught up." For my quality of life, this is great, but for "engagement," it's a disaster.

Urgency/outrage/drama keep people coming back to Twitter in the same way that sugar and fats keep them coming back to McDonalds. Similarly, you can offer a Diet Coke or a McSalad, but people aren't going to buy those because they taste better than a Coke or a Big Mac. They're going to buy those because they understand the tradeoff of sugary/fatty foods, and because it's a lifestyle choice that projects certain values to themselves and others: temperance, restraint, health-consciousness, etc.