That's fair, I should have elaborated a bit more on that point in my post. My thinking is that I need to use principles that will optimise the signal-to-noise ratio. In other words, just consuming everything in my feed is not optimal. One effective way to optimise the signal-to-noise ratio is to block Twitter Blue accounts.
I am not saying that all content from Twitter Blue accounts is bad (I am sure a lot of it is very good), but that I - on average - will get better content in my feed from not having any Twitter Blue accounts showing up.
When looking something up in a certain search engine which shall not be named, I never look at the top-most advertised links. This has multiple reasons, but probably the most important one is: a search engine is interested in showing me content that I wouldn't be shown normally as a result to earn money. So I ignore these and look towards the later links, or (preferred) I block them from showing up.
Do you feel this is juvenile? If not, can you clearly differentiate? Just to be clear, we're talking about blocking people that artificially boost their reach. In my view, these boosted messages will at best bring you "worse" content (in the sense that it isn't visible due to the content of the message, but due to the wallet of the author), at worst you'll get content from malicious actors (state actors etc.) washed to look like grass-roots opinions.
I've noticed that twitter blue subscribers often are high up in the list of replies, and are often (but not always) lower quality. I've gotten in the habit of blocking Twitter blue subscribers as well, and it has improved the quality of the application for me. I should take some time out to make a plug in automatically block them.
I don't see how using tools to make a user experience better for myself is juvenile.
I am not saying that all content from Twitter Blue accounts is bad (I am sure a lot of it is very good), but that I - on average - will get better content in my feed from not having any Twitter Blue accounts showing up.