The economic "rational agent" that I'm referring to is, in large part, robotic. It (yup, "it" - it's an abstraction, not a real person) is devoid of emotion and motivated by self-interest alone. It would gladly burn a circus full of people to make some popcorn. It does take long term into account, but only for itself, never for the others.

I just find it funny that, even if it's called "rational", its behaviour describes rather well how irrational masses behave.

Bacon on a cheeseburger: isn't that basically porn? Some outright enjoy it, some avoid it, and some try to avoid it but still consume it in small amounts. Or even politics, for some, who apparently see apolitical content as disgusting.

Which reminds me of the STEM adage that a simple concept behind the word “good” does not exist,

Yes. Yes and it goes further - "good" and "bad" don't have intrinsic value, they depend on a point of reference and a specific attribute. And there's often implicit but never stated moral statements, when people using it. Those aren't taboo words for me, mind you, but we need to be a bit careful about how and why we use them, and make sure that the others are on the same page on what should be called "good" / "bad".

For example. When I talk about "good content", that "good" can be two things:

• content depth - or, how it informs you, makes you think, makes you more knowledgeable
• content desirability - by itself relative to a certain audience, but we can approximate it to an abstract "average user".

I think Reddit was always content-based though?

Yes but it's clear that the admins were making it more social media-based. Posting to profile, livestream, chat, those things are practically useless in a content-centric site, but they're essential for a social interactions-based one.