The result is actually an emergent property of "increase attention/engagement to the max".
This is actually an algorithmic result that was just one of many possibilities.
So, I don't blame the developers 100%. Forest/trees problem.
What I do blame is Zuckerberg & the Board's decision to not 180' on the algorithm and lower engagement now that we know this is the result - money & power.
Let's be honest here. Facebook for Zuckerberg is just a political tool for him now. Earlier, he wanted to run for President, which is obviously at severe conflict with the FB board's stated vision. Now he has realized that he can just twist any nation into his image. Money and power, at the end of the day.
Not really. On the contrary, he's succeeding quite well - being on good terms with Facebook is now essential for any government seeking to get reelected, or seeking to stay in power (in the case of dictatorships). Zuckerberg wants to outwardly lean Democrat, but inside, it's all about maintaining money and power. Just check his natural progression - first laughing at the idiocy of his Harvard peers for sharing their personal details out in the open, all the way to very recently trying to launch his own crypto coin, which would have enabled his "alliance" to gather data on spending habits of its users.
They know they can't lower engagement, these are positive feedback loops, and attention is a zero-sum economy. If they give up even a tiny bit, they 'll lose out to competitors.
The result is actually an emergent property of "increase attention/engagement to the max".
This is actually an algorithmic result that was just one of many possibilities.
So, I don't blame the developers 100%. Forest/trees problem.
What I do blame is Zuckerberg & the Board's decision to not 180' on the algorithm and lower engagement now that we know this is the result - money & power.