I'd rather a more conservative approach than copy+pasting the vitriol and polarization of Twitter onto a new platform. And it's a smart move to make it friendlier to users who were uninterested in Twitter because of this dominant characteristic.
Of course, the journalists are up in arms, but the relationship between incendiary news / Tweets and its influence on journalistic narratives reported on is a big structural risk. I think of it like separation of prop trading firms and banks, rather than having an unenforced Chinese wall between them.
I'm no fan of Meta/FB because of their attitude to privacy and their own brand of toxic social media on Facebook but it's hard to argue against the approach taken with the launch here.
I don't believe the approach is conservative in as much as it's necessary product development: you have to know your audience, your market, and by virtue that means you know what you aren't going to cater for. No hard news, no divisive politics, no journalistic commentary? Totally fair and I imagine many will find that refreshing; same reason why people come on HN for the technical niche except this time it's optimised for Instagrammers and influencers.
Musk made his own play with Twitter in a similar vein by choosing what audience he preferred to cater to and, in effect, scored an own goal of epic proportions. A truly ludicrous display given Twitter's ubiquity before he took the reins.
Of course, the journalists are up in arms, but the relationship between incendiary news / Tweets and its influence on journalistic narratives reported on is a big structural risk. I think of it like separation of prop trading firms and banks, rather than having an unenforced Chinese wall between them.