Jeremy Stangroom

Before social media, only those views palatable to those in control of newspapers or TV stations could be heard widely. Politics came to reflect the concerns of those with that power. That is not liberal at all.

It's not democratic, it could be liberal.

Liberal in the sense of hearing views different to ones own. Unfortunately that sometimes includes the views of angry people. Unpleasant though that may be suppressing those views is not liberal.

Hmmmm. Not convinced social media encourages a diversity of views (even when compared to the old system). Social media allows people to create hermetically sealed enclaves which function to amplify the In-group's orthodoxy.

I don't see how Twitter is hermetically sealed. This exchange is evidence of that. I can and do express differing views. I might not always be able to persuade others, but my opinion is heard.

It's hermetically sealed, because people follow (and block) according to their political and ideological commitments. If your opinions are seen, then it is only through the filter of these collectivities (with either approbation or the opposite).

I don't block anybody. I get comments from people with opposing views. I'm occasionally followed by Trump supporters! Perhaps I made a point they agreed with. I see no hermetic seals. Far less than the MSM.

Right, but we're talking about a tendency among activists (and politically committed) - that's the polarisation & entrenchment that drives the increased authoritarianism. I can give you Twitter profiles to check out if you want to see the phenomenon in action (e.g., Dan Arel).

Yes, Twitter presents every issue as a test of allegiance and moral character, requiring an immediate intuitive response. It's like a moral Rorschach test.

Twitter, or some of the people using it?