Did you ignore the OP's long tail mention on purpose? It may very well be not the majority wants, so we cannot be talking about wishes of any singular "people". And for this reason, this strategy may no be suitable for "growth".

But as a solid, sustainable profit source? Are you claiming that only a marginal number of people want this, or what?

Facebook's ARPU and overall revenue has been continuing to increase even last quarter.

So clearly they know a little bit about what is a solid, sustainable profit source.

> So clearly they know a little bit about what is a solid, sustainable profit source.

It is more than a "solid, sustainable" profit source, it is a best-in-class cash cow that feeds a growing monstrosity for shareholders that want more, more, more.

The business they left behind is still sustainable.

I'm fairly certain that drug dealers' numbers indicate that people "want" more addictive drugs.

Facebook and other social media isn't quite at that level, but the same logic applies to your argument: there are fundamentally different kinds of "wants", and the drug dealer/social media metrics invariably cater to the unhealthy kind.

So what? Let them have TikTok.

The evidence may be clear, but it is also driven by tech that is increasingly effective at pressing our dopamine buttons. I'm not sure that the opinions of a drug-addled constituency are important for the far more simple question of, "is there a sustainable business here?"