These are very interesting points I hadn’t considered before. I’m going to be more careful about my use of the word “polarization” because I agree it falls short of describing the truth.
From my perspective, my view of my own “side” hasn’t changed much beyond continually increasing disappointment in party leadership. What has changed dramatically is how I perceive the other side, and I think how the internet is governed, specifically Section 230, deserves a lot of blame.
Section 230 carved out tech platforms as not legally responsible for content users post on their sites, meaning that if Bob lies about me on TikTok, I can sue Bob but I cannot sue TikTok. The rule made sense back when we were talking about simple tech like a message board, or comments on news articles, but once these platforms became more powerful publishers than traditional broadcasters, it has started contributing to a public discourse with no guardrails. For instance, Fox News got sued by Dominion for spreading election misinformation relatively tame compared to what was catching fire on Facebook, but Facebook didn’t get sued, even though their algorithms actively promoted those lies to more passive users than Fox has viewers.
Until I started seeking out publications like The Preamble, Tangle, and various Substack independent journalists that present good faith descriptions of why people believe what they believe, my default internet diet was whatever got the most engagement: late night clips cherry-picking Republican voters to make them seem like monsters, or outrage bait about what the president said while ignoring things that actually affected my local life. Sure, a lot of people are monsters, but it’s not the full truth, and it’s not helpful to only focus on the worst ragebait. I would argue it not only poisoned our view of each other, but also has forced a lot of good people out of political discourse to protect their mental health.
These posts showed up in my feed not based on their value but because platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter found the most inflammatory content and boosted it for profit. They kept me on the site posting reactions for hours. In the end, only the platforms and extremist politicians won. Regular folks, levelheaded candidates, and quality journalism lost. The graphs in the article back this up: the trend existed before the internet, but party sorting really accelerated after 2000, and feelings toward the other side tanked after the Facebook newsfeed launched. Correlation isn’t causation, but there’s a connection.
This problem is too pervasive and controlled by perverse incentives to let capitalist forces dictate how people see each other. We need serious constitutional reform clarifying that freedom of speech and press doesn’t mean tech companies (and the extremist narcissists who control them) get to bend our discourse to whatever they find most profitable. The default picture we get of the world should be closer to reality than this.
I’ve been working on a project to draft ten new constitutional amendments, getting feedback from people across the political spectrum, then demanding candidates in the 2026 midterms make these reforms central to their platforms. Think of it like a second Bill of Rights: pledges to fix gerrymandering, shorten election seasons, and reform how tech platforms warp our perception of each other. Even if we can’t pass all ten in a year, we can address the most pressing ones and keep momentum going.
The individual actions you outlined are great and important, but we also need the system to stop the bleeding. With a year left before the midterms, it’s time we turn this knowledge into action.
Thanks Andrea, for giving this topic the attention and science it deserves!
Thank you, Timothy, for always thinking and acting outside the box.
It is so valuable for us to share thoughts and actions with each other in ways that invite consensus. And that sounds exactly what you are doing in a very important and structured way.
I look forward to hearing more about your 10 amendments.
Another way everyone can engage in sharing “thoughts and actions” with others, is by participating in groups that may include a spectrum of people, and be willing to discuss their views and activities with them.
I will tell you, I am frequently asked not to! I have brought up, what I thought were, common ground subjects like registering voters and attending a Vigil for Sandy Hook victims with school friends, neighborhood book club, etc., only to be told to stop.
Nevertheless, I persist!
I keep attending groups where my views may be in the minority, and I keep witnessing for common ground. I have found one person willing to meet me in the middle, and I’m not giving up!
This is such an interesting article and I appreciate the way it breaks down polarization. The best part, the helpful suggestions at the end for what we as individuals can do. Thanks, Andrea!
There is a lot in this article to comprehend and absorb , but, ultimately ,I would say that we need to try to understand each other and seek to find common ground that speaks to our human condition and our need for something better through cooperation. That in itself takes time to affect, but is worth the effort in the end, I would think.
Thank you for this article. I so struggle with nauseating anger towards those who are harming others. I see it so directly in my life. I don’t want to live in that anger.
These are very interesting points I hadn’t considered before. I’m going to be more careful about my use of the word “polarization” because I agree it falls short of describing the truth.
From my perspective, my view of my own “side” hasn’t changed much beyond continually increasing disappointment in party leadership. What has changed dramatically is how I perceive the other side, and I think how the internet is governed, specifically Section 230, deserves a lot of blame.
Section 230 carved out tech platforms as not legally responsible for content users post on their sites, meaning that if Bob lies about me on TikTok, I can sue Bob but I cannot sue TikTok. The rule made sense back when we were talking about simple tech like a message board, or comments on news articles, but once these platforms became more powerful publishers than traditional broadcasters, it has started contributing to a public discourse with no guardrails. For instance, Fox News got sued by Dominion for spreading election misinformation relatively tame compared to what was catching fire on Facebook, but Facebook didn’t get sued, even though their algorithms actively promoted those lies to more passive users than Fox has viewers.
Until I started seeking out publications like The Preamble, Tangle, and various Substack independent journalists that present good faith descriptions of why people believe what they believe, my default internet diet was whatever got the most engagement: late night clips cherry-picking Republican voters to make them seem like monsters, or outrage bait about what the president said while ignoring things that actually affected my local life. Sure, a lot of people are monsters, but it’s not the full truth, and it’s not helpful to only focus on the worst ragebait. I would argue it not only poisoned our view of each other, but also has forced a lot of good people out of political discourse to protect their mental health.
These posts showed up in my feed not based on their value but because platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter found the most inflammatory content and boosted it for profit. They kept me on the site posting reactions for hours. In the end, only the platforms and extremist politicians won. Regular folks, levelheaded candidates, and quality journalism lost. The graphs in the article back this up: the trend existed before the internet, but party sorting really accelerated after 2000, and feelings toward the other side tanked after the Facebook newsfeed launched. Correlation isn’t causation, but there’s a connection.
This problem is too pervasive and controlled by perverse incentives to let capitalist forces dictate how people see each other. We need serious constitutional reform clarifying that freedom of speech and press doesn’t mean tech companies (and the extremist narcissists who control them) get to bend our discourse to whatever they find most profitable. The default picture we get of the world should be closer to reality than this.
I’ve been working on a project to draft ten new constitutional amendments, getting feedback from people across the political spectrum, then demanding candidates in the 2026 midterms make these reforms central to their platforms. Think of it like a second Bill of Rights: pledges to fix gerrymandering, shorten election seasons, and reform how tech platforms warp our perception of each other. Even if we can’t pass all ten in a year, we can address the most pressing ones and keep momentum going.
The individual actions you outlined are great and important, but we also need the system to stop the bleeding. With a year left before the midterms, it’s time we turn this knowledge into action.
Thanks Andrea, for giving this topic the attention and science it deserves!
Thank you, Timothy, for always thinking and acting outside the box.
It is so valuable for us to share thoughts and actions with each other in ways that invite consensus. And that sounds exactly what you are doing in a very important and structured way.
I look forward to hearing more about your 10 amendments.
Another way everyone can engage in sharing “thoughts and actions” with others, is by participating in groups that may include a spectrum of people, and be willing to discuss their views and activities with them.
I will tell you, I am frequently asked not to! I have brought up, what I thought were, common ground subjects like registering voters and attending a Vigil for Sandy Hook victims with school friends, neighborhood book club, etc., only to be told to stop.
Nevertheless, I persist!
I keep attending groups where my views may be in the minority, and I keep witnessing for common ground. I have found one person willing to meet me in the middle, and I’m not giving up!
Thank you for your effort, Gina. I'm a "finding common ground " kind of guy myself.
Very perceptive, Timothy. I like your thinking.
This is such an interesting article and I appreciate the way it breaks down polarization. The best part, the helpful suggestions at the end for what we as individuals can do. Thanks, Andrea!
I agree.
There is a lot in this article to comprehend and absorb , but, ultimately ,I would say that we need to try to understand each other and seek to find common ground that speaks to our human condition and our need for something better through cooperation. That in itself takes time to affect, but is worth the effort in the end, I would think.
Thank you for this article. I so struggle with nauseating anger towards those who are harming others. I see it so directly in my life. I don’t want to live in that anger.
Me neither.