More and more, I am of the opinion that tribalism is at the root of all public discourse dysfunction.
[...]
I'm at a loss to know what could be done to improve this state of affairs.
No. Tribal instincts have been with us from the start. They were once - probably still are - an adaptation increasing our chance of survival. They are the
mechanism, not the cause, the firing pin striking the cartridge, not the finger on the trigger.
What we have to find out is: How did our societies keep our tribal instincts in check in the past? What condition has changed
this time? (It's not the 1930s. Are you stepping over bodies on your way to work? No? -> Not the 1930s) And in which way(s) did it drive the system out of equilibrium?
And no, I don't think we should spend
too much time with economic arguments, or rather, we should look at them more in terms of inequality, and how that inequality is percieved. While certainly important, we're not stepping over starved people in the street of major cities. My ancestors did. Perception plays a crucial role, methinks, and especially perception of inequality and persistent crisis, that Government is unable or unwilling to correct. None of that needs necessarily to be true, or true to a significant degree for an uncomfortably large share of the people getting dangerous ideas.
TL;DR - The polarization is a symptom of a persistent imbalance. An equilibrium has been disturbed. It could even be that the disturbance started long before the fashionably-blamed Internet. And why, if we're all so convinced that social media is poisoning our societies, has noone
seriously argued to shut them down? Our Governments
can do that, remember? And those that lack suitable legal means, can create them. That's what parliaments are
for. Too crass proposal, too dangerous? Democratic societies have made
far more drastic interventions in the past than shutting down 5 companies - and they have done so without stopping to be democratic states. Think of prohibition. Declaring political parties unlawful. People not being able to look at their Facebook - that doesn't come even close in terms of limitations of personal rights, or freedom of enterprise.
Do we ourselves even believe that Facebook et. al. are to blame? If not, we should stop saying so and start looking for alternative theories. But if we do ... then we should start behaving like we are taking this seriously. Then the social media giants should learn that their continued existence is contingent on their enthusiastic cooperation.