Many major social media platforms operate on business models that prioritize user engagement and attention as the primary metrics for success. These models rely on advertising revenue, which increases when users spend more time on the platform and engage more frequently with content. This creates a fundamental misalignment between what's profitable for platforms and what's healthy for individuals and society. Research consistently shows that emotionally charged content—particularly material that triggers outrage, fear, or divisiveness—generates significantly more engagement than neutral or positive content. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement therefore tend to amplify the most provocative and polarizing voices, regardless of accuracy or social value. This creates feedback loops where content creators are incentivized to produce increasingly extreme material to maintain visibility. The consequences of this system are far-reaching. Public discourse becomes dominated by the most inflammatory perspectives rather than the most thoughtful ones. Complex issues are reduced to simplified, antagonistic narratives. Users are pushed toward increasingly radical content through recommendation systems. And social cohesion suffers as different groups are exposed to dramatically different information environments tailored to reinforce their existing views. Some argue that these outcomes aren't bugs but features of a system working exactly as designed—to capture and monetize human attention regardless of the social cost. Addressing this issue requires fundamentally reimagining the economic incentives that drive platform design, potentially through regulation, alternative business models, or both. Without such changes, platforms may continue optimizing for engagement metrics that fail to account for human and social well-being.