> Seeking engagement is not necessarly evil. GitHub increased engagement [...]
At this point it really depends on what you mean by "engagement". GitHub's definition of "engagement" is definitely not the same as Twitter's.
Technically, Twitter's goal is not "engagement" but "time spent looking at ads". It just so happens that "engagement" is a very good proxy for that. In Twitter's case, increasing "engagement" is definitely evil.
I also don't believe GitHub's goal is to increase engagement. Their goal is ultimately to deliver features useful to their paying customers - companies that build software, where as Twitter's (and any other ad-supported service's) goal is to serve more ad impressions (or at least make advertisers believe they do).
I don't think that's any better than the current scheme; infact, it could be worse becasue the current ad system has centralized control which can check on extremist echo-chambers. I suspect Patreon-style funding will increase polarization[1], with the "content-creators" optimizing for what brings in the most money, not necessarily their thoughtful ideas.
1. With a side of increased brigading, coordinated harassment,doxxing and swatting; but that'll be the price of "free" speech.
I'd be happy to pay $1 or $2/mo for this directly from Twitter, but until that's an option I don't feel remotely bad removing my sliver of ad revenue from their bottom line.
Getting rid of the "trending" block, with something else, like "trending tag within people you follow" would get rid of this normalisation of extreme behavior.
Then you need moderation.
Seeking engagement is not necessarly evil.
GitHub increased engagement, and it lead to more cooperation in the open source software, that's a plus for everyone.
The issue of a lot of social networks, is they want engagement, even if it cause addiction.
I think twitter social network "model" is salvagable in something healty, but it needs a lot of changes.