Socrates dissatisfied vs. a fool satisfied

At page 13-14, Mill argues that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” I think this is how it should be, but in some cases people will think that it is better to be a fool satisfied than to be Socrates dissatisfied. One example is with McDonalds. McDonalds’ food taste good and people like to eat there. However, it is well-known that their food process is unethical in terms of how animals are treated and also not good for the human body because it uses lots of chemicals. However, the demand for McDonalds is increasing, meaning that people are supporting its business. People are given an option to see both sides; the tasty and unhealthy food, but people do not make the better options, they will still eat food from McDonalds. If people remain fools after seeing both sides, then isn’t it better to be the fool satisfied who does not know the unhealthy side of McDonalds’ food so that one can just purely enjoy the tasty food than be a human being dissatisfied? Mill might say that at some point people will start making a better decision or try to solve the problem by knowing both sides, so at the end, it is better to be a human being dissatisfied. This is true and some people do not eat McDonalds’ food. They may be unsatisfied because they are missing the tasty food, but at the same time those people probably would not want to go back to the fool satisfied. However, that kind of trend does not seem to be the common path, seeing the increasing demand for McDonalds. So when the majority prefers to stay as a fool satisfied, is it actually better to be Socrates dissatisfied?