That is an issue, but the real fundamental issue is algorithmic timelines and recommendations that bias content to maximize engagement. What maximizes engagement? Hate, fear, and bombast.
Fixing it isn't going to be easy, though. Look at the amount of effort that the scientific community tries to put into improving the quality of communication:- peer review, standards for content ... and there's still nagging issues with reproducing results and even outright fraud in some cases.
Whatever solution we come up with will likely increase friction in the user experience, but there's lots of room for innovation here.
What we did was to insert a biasing function between all people that biased content for engagement. What maximizes engagement? Hate, fear, and conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-retweeted_tweets
Doesn't seem like you are right about that.
Edit: Going by replies might yield a different more negative result, the word "ratiod" imply that many see a reply almost as a downvote. But I was not able to find a list of most replied-to tweets.
A thousand tweets that are each seen by a different (non-intersecting) group of a thousand people, each tweet being an accusation of evil directed at a specific person or group, does as much damage as one tweet seen by a million.
I hope that this measure would show the same result as the two lists you linked to; my current guess is that if someone did this analysis, the result would be almost as positive, but not quite, on the grounds that hate-inducing tweets are against the TOS and will be hidden or deleted when they reach a visibility threshold.
(I also felt it would be an Apples-to-Oranges comparison when the alternative was a single account tweeting to a million followers).
The most tweeted about people on twitter are Trump, Biden, and George Floyd[1]. I think that gives a pretty good idea of the content occupying people's minds.
[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/insights/2020/spending...