Daily Herald opinion: Who will debate our point? Social media is not designed for the thoughtful discourse traditional media has tried to foster

For as long as we have published an Opinion page, print or digital, we have encouraged letters to the editor. We have seen this as part of our obligation to spur the civic debate that is vital to a government by the people considering a wide variety of views and hashing out the best solutions.

And as long as our pages have offered those letters columns, we have tried to enforce a couple of simple rules: No name calling. No insults.

Sometimes we have done a better job of enforcing those rules than others perhaps, but the focus on the case to be made, not on the litigant, has been the goal. The point is to explore issues and positions, not to yell the loudest, not to disguise slogans as arguments.

Frankly, this is the atmosphere most newspapers have tried to create in their opinion columns.

Consider the contrast in that with the atmosphere social media creates.

A colleague recently recounted an incident where he saw social media post by a relative that expressed a strong point of view on gun rights.

Our colleague considered offering a respectful argument to the contrary — until he noticed the vacuous comments below that post dogmatically celebrating the relative's position.

Here's the thing: Social media for the most part is not designed for thoughtful discourse. It is not designed for respectful give-and-take or for elevating anyone's point of view.

It is an echo chamber. It is less about persuading than it is about digging in. It is made up of factions eliciting cheers and jeers. Opposing views for the most part are neither encouraged nor welcomed.

Yael Eisenstat, a former CIA analyst and onetime Facebook employee, notes that the success of social media companies “depends on provoking strong emotion to keep us engaged, often incentivizing the most inflammatory and polarizing voices, to the point where finding common ground no longer feels possible.”

After reviewing more than 50 social science studies and interviewing more than 40 experts, the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University concluded that social media sites “likely are not the root causes of political polarization but they do exacerbate it.”

In its infancy, most of us naively imagined social media as a marvelous tool for civic discourse — that here was this wondrous opportunity for people from different places, backgrounds and perspectives to understand each other and learn from each other.

In those early days, we thought it would bring us together. Yes, we actually thought that.

Problem is, instead of extending our reach into far-off vistas, social media tends to do the opposite. It encourages us to circle the wagons and invite in those who agree to think the way we do. Even worse, it encourages us to see those who do not complement our beliefs as outsiders, not as the opportunities they are to stretch our thinking.

Such a shame. So foreboding. This is the future unless we all re-learn how to talk and to listen to each other.