Twitter is certainly more palatable with a ruthlessly curated feed. In fact I think it's a mandatory action or you'll simply stop engaging with the platform. So

Twitter is certainly more palatable with a ruthlessly curated feed. In fact I think it's a mandatory action or you'll simply stop engaging with the platform. So anyone who's an ongoing twitter user is guaranteed to have a highly filtered view of what's posted. So in the end the tailoring capability makes itself an obligation, which leads to users floating in their own opinions and information bubble, leads to ... interesting ... outcomes when the real world comes knocking. This is markedly different to how it has been before with specialist forums etc. There, while there was coalescence around particular topics, the range of opinions and personalities participating was otherwise quite open and the ability to filter was limited (or rather, elective in a way that twitter feed curation is not). There was certainly some self-selection at play but it's intensified massively with the shift in dynamic. Facebook has the same issue as twitter of course and I suspect many other platforms as well - One mitigating approach is to try and keep conflicting views on your feed but it quickly becomes so tiresome that your engagement with the platform as a whole drops. I'm not sure there's a good approach other than to go full wargames.