It is a feedback loop. Politics has become more polarized, I believe, because of the need to be "pure" so avoid the wrath of the party's highly polarized base.
30 years ago an R and a D could cut a deal to get things done and few people would notice that they compromised by giving a little to get a little.
Now when such deals happen the deal makers are branded as traitors and RINOs (do people use DINOs too?) and must be primaried.
FB encourages polarization because it increases engagement with their advertisers, which is useful to FB. The polarized base is useful to parties because it motivates them to donate, proselytize, and vote. That base polarization leads to polarization in candidates, and the division grows.
30 years ago an R and a D could cut a deal to get things done and few people would notice that they compromised by giving a little to get a little.
Now when such deals happen the deal makers are branded as traitors and RINOs (do people use DINOs too?) and must be primaried.
FB encourages polarization because it increases engagement with their advertisers, which is useful to FB. The polarized base is useful to parties because it motivates them to donate, proselytize, and vote. That base polarization leads to polarization in candidates, and the division grows.