This is a really odd reading to me. Especially if you play through the scenario multiple times, you see that the Anxiety Wolf controls Human regardless of what you do: even if you turn down the party invitations or if you never interact with the news story on Twitter at all.
It's not that engaging with social networks is bad, it's that Anxiety Wolf views every interaction and outcome as dangerous. If you eat bread, you're eating junk food. If you don't eat bread, you might have an eating disorder. If you don't share a story, you're disengaged. If you do share a story, you didn't fact check it enough. If you eat lunch alone, you're going to die alone because you can't make friends. If you try to get a date, your date's a serial killer. You can't win; there isn't a move that Anxiety Wolf will be happy with other than being in a constant state of panic all the time or curling up in a ball and crying, because Anxiety Wolf is scared of everything.
The point of the first section of the game is that Anxiety Wolf has an unhealthy relationship with risk analysis, which ultimately leads into the point of the second act of the game -- that the absence of Anxiety Wolf also causes Human to have an unhealthy relationship with risk analysis in the opposite direction, to the point where Human starts ignoring imminently dangerous situations.
> I.E. I may feel better if I pretend covid is not real though I am not making a healthy choice if I do.
Covid is actually a pretty good example here. Anxiety Wolf wants you to get vaccinated (which is a very good idea, because you should be scared of catching Delta). But Anxiety Wolf was also the voice early on in the pandemic telling people to dip their fruit in bleach in case somebody in the grocery store had touched it. It's important to figure out how to distinguish between those two suggestions.