Thank you for the deep response, alongside with the links. I agree that Facebook has a power to choose what content gets promoted, which is very dangerous. My

Thank you for the deep response, alongside with the links. I agree that Facebook has a power to choose what content gets promoted, which is very dangerous. My key point is, that given this state, they must tread very, very carefully. The second order consequences to changes can be dire. A common argument is that inaction can be worse, but given that most solutions involve _more_ intervention rather than less, the tail only grows more catastrophic. Not only that, but I think Facebook has a lot less power here than people think. There are competitors, and not everyone will choose to reduce addictiveness for the greater good. These two questions I think are what leadership / great eng are grappling with the most. In my opinion, the solution involves removing slowly the intervention that Facebook already has, while introducing other means to keep people engaged (or else, they will simply leave and join whatever other thing will radicalize them)