There are some things that are decisions by outside entities, and pinpointing the problem is the first step to fixing it. Or even to making an informed decision as a consumer. Especially given that children are reared in this environment, and maybe aren't reflective about it even as they transition to adulthood.
For instance, the "algorithm" by which social media companies use to decide what to put in your feed is currently optimized for maximizing engagement. It used to just be a chronological series of posts from people who you've specifically added as friends.
Those aren't the only two options, but the first option is clearly the only option if we rely on ad-driven companies.
Subscription models are starting to take off, but it is unclear what attractor state that will end up at.
Another possibility is to create non-profit social networks, in the same way that Wikipedia did for collaborative information sharing.
Picking and choosing the best ideas from each of the various efforts would be wise.
The rise of bots becomes a real problem, because it is hard to see how to eliminate them without a subscription model.
But that subscription could still be going towards a non-profit entity, rather than a for-profit one. And the money could be used to fund development.
So to me the ideal network would be
1. Run by a non-profit
2. Leverages a subscription model, with no ads (Twitter Blue style)
3. Open source, and adheres to the P2P ActivityPub standard (Mastodon-style)
4. Faithfully follows whatever feed algorithm and settings you choose.
6. Light-touch moderation, such as Community Notes (Twitter-style)
7. Orders all comments by vote count (Reddit-style)
8. Only two reaction options, up or down (Reddit-style, HN-style)
9. No character limit (Facebook-style)
10. Group-oriented (Facebook-style, Reddit-style)
And then maybe a few different variations on that for different purposes. An anarchic one that allows pseudonyms, and a formal respectable one that mandates a Real Names policy.