Over time, either the users will evolve to make the abuse less effective (equivalent of "banner blindness" of early web advertising), use technical countermeasures (ad-blocking, alternative clients, etc) or use their political power to vote for regulations that will make outlaw said abuse. A mix of all of these is currently happening.
The only areas where this kind of adversarial relationship will work is if the adversary has no choice - such as military/defense or law enforcement for example (military enemies can't vote, suspected & convicted criminals can but the feedback loop is so long that it's not going to have effects any time soon). But if the adversary has a free choice, over time they will exercise that choice which will reduce (and eventually eliminate) the profitability of abusing them.
I don't see this - or any other business built primarily on advertising and "growth & engagement" - as a winning long-term strategy.
This has been my thesis re: FB for a long time now. Using fear, hate, sex, etc to manipulate higher engagement from users isn’t sustainable. It’s abusive and eventually people will move on.
Apple made its intentions public. It was the market that mispriced the impact.