Their examples aren't contrived, you just lack the fortitude to admit your views have no grounding in reality.
Every person with Internet access should have equal access to its wealth of information. Why do some people spend their time on Facebook becoming "deranged anger addicts" instead of educating themselves on Khan Academy?
Also, assuming what I think ("I bet when you see ...") and attacking me personally (questioning my "fortitude") is not a good look. If your points are sound, then let them stand on their own without the personal attacks.
Unless I'm mistaken, I think we both want the same end result, but there is a difference in our approach: I'd rather address the root cause (bottom-up) instead of the symptoms working back to the root (top-down).
> At one stage they weighted angry responses to a post as being worth five times more than a like ...
Do not blame Facebook for this. Ask yourself why they did this. Hint: you've already said the answer, but did not commit.
A college friend reaching out after five years? Engagement. Your stacker finding you after years of evading them? Engagement. A daughter wishing her mother a happy birthday? Engagement. Matt Walsh telling his audience that all trans people are inherently vile sexual predators? Engagement.
Even if you can reason with individuals, that means nothing on someone like Matt Walshes scale. Even if 98% of people disagree with him, that is still a successful result for him as he has millions of devoted followers who will champion his causes.
We very obviously do not want the same results, you are suggesting solutions you know don't work.
I understand that addressing root causes is difficult which is why quick and easy solutions are tempting. However, addressing the symptoms doesn't solve the problem. I would rather address root causes because in doing so I believe the symptoms will be addressed. It's fine to disagree with my problem solving approach, but we'll have to agree to disagree.