[22289d]

So what you're saying is deep down they wish they could maximize outrage but they don't because they want to appease advertisers and regulators.

We're not disagreeing. I wasn't speaking to what's in their heart, only to what they actually do.

[softg]

No, what I'm saying is they maximize outrage, but pretend that they care about civility.

You yourself said neither platform was successful in their attempts, that's because those "attempts" are there for show. They can't reduce outrage without reducing their profits.

[22289d]

> No, what I'm saying is they maximize outrage, but pretend that they care about civility.

Then you're wrong. They don't just pretend to care, they take actions. I've already given several examples.

> You yourself said neither platform was successful in their attempts

No, I did not say that. I said 'arguably' and that was precisely so people wouldn't try to turn this into a debate about how good they are at it. I said they try and they absolutely do try.

> because those "attempts" are there for show

And now you're contradicting yourself. You said they only pretend to care and now you said they make attempts. You keep flip flopping on what it is that you are even saying.

I can't read minds. Evidently you can and that's an awesome skill, congratulations. But everything I've said refers only to what they actually do. And what they do is to take actions that are clearly detrimental to maximizing outrage. Something you've just agreed with, if we extract all of your mind reading voodoo magic.