What goes to the heart of the entire issue is whether recommendation systems, as used by social networks, are inferring "what people like". That's the whole problem.

When shown an outrage-inducing tweet are you being showing "what you like" or something quite different? Eg., what is most likey to addict you to the platform, what elicits the highest emotional response. Do people trapped gambling their lives away in casions "like" being there?

The idea that social networks are engaged in a sincere project to estimate people's preferences is on the face of it absurd.

And requires such superstitions as "revealed preferences" which are often little more than an observation that people do what their environment most easily affords.

To call that an exercise of preference, to say that people like it, is a great misunderstanding of human nature.

People are much better than what they happen to do in any given environment, and social media companies bare extreme levels of responsibility for creating environments of so-called "revealed preferences" where, apparently people want eating disorders, conspiracy theories, twitter rage sessions, and so on.