[22289d]

A good example of what? A platform not seeking to maximize outrage?

Yes. They banned the Donald Trump subreddit. That one subreddit produced more outrage than probably everything else in the history of Reddit combined. And they banned it. A company seeking to maximize outrage would not do that.

[sanitycheck]

You don't want your customers OD'ing, you want them to keep coming back.

Just because there's a limit to the outrage tolerated, it doesn't mean that outrage isn't part of the plan.

[22289d]

You're supporting my argument. You're saying it's not in their best interests to maximize outrage.

That's where the goalposts are and that's where they are going to stay: whether or not they seek to maximize outrage.

[jowea]

I think the "maximize outage" is a good simplification 80% of the time, but the "goal chain" goes from there to maximum advertising revenue, and that requires happy advertisers. And in the case of reddit I'm not sure how much revenue comes from gold and how much that was harmed by people saying "don't give money to this site hosting hate-speech".

[plagiarist]

A company seeking to maximize profit from outrage would keep it up until they engage in behavior that threatens ad revenue, like if they were talking about murdering police officers or something.

[22289d]

Here are the goalposts: 'seek to maximize outrage'

Please do not add any extra words to that, thus shifting the goalposts. Here you have added the word 'profit'. I never said anything about profit.