Completely agree. One feed, driven by "engagement" (read: outrage). I tried to follow experts in a field, but the content was 90% about things NOT in their fie

Completely agree. One feed, driven by "engagement" (read: outrage). I tried to follow experts in a field, but the content was 90% about things NOT in their field that I don't care about. The algorithm drives toxicity in a way that is ALSO true about (say) Facebook news article comments; however, my usage of Facebook is not to consume THAT content, but to consume the ACTUAL content of my ACTUAL friends. I'm not "important" enough on Twitter to get any engagement, which I don't really care about, because I'm not trying to be a personality or an influencer, or overuse hashtags for attention and clicks. But then on those rare occasions when you WOULD get value from a large circle, you don't have it. Facebook's drive to require "real names" some years ago, for what it's worth today, has also made it more "familiar. And I'm seeing my friends' content, and, at worse, their off-color or vaguely toxic friends. Some of that stuff sucks to see, but it's far better than the algo-driven firehouse of content from random people I get on Twitter. And on Twitter and IG, the people who I DO know that I follow, are generally a subset of IRL friends, and I'll probably see their content on FB. And anyway, half of them are using generic made-up monikers that change each week and I can't keep track of, or don't care to.