Is the way we display politics online getting worse?
First, let me preface this by saying that my substations are somewhat anecdotal, but I think it represents an interesting shift in the way politics have been discussed, and actively interferes with any compromise. When we look to platforms such as Ben Shapiro's Debates, Charlie Kirk's Debates, left of center debaters, or even to seemingly objective organizations such as Jubilee, there is an emphasis on sensationalism as a metric for profit. Is this sensationalism actively causing a radicalization in politics, or just a somewhat relevant offshoot of corporate greed? And importantly should we embrace this as the natural way ideas get presented in an online space? And because these are pretty surface level questions, how do we move the online discussion from just picking the most extreme sensationalist clips into a pedagogical field of discussion which creates an understanding of politics?
Disclaimer/Opinion: Politics does not mean anything that strips people of rights or outweighs the Constitution. This means concepts such as bigotry, racism, and Excessive Nationalism + Exclusionism (you can be anti-immigration just not anti-anythingthatisntme) by ANY religion or political movement are not protected by the same rational discussion. Is this vague to some extent, yes, but I think when we refer to politics we ought to talk about genuine political movements over attempts to consolidate power or to deconstruct years of equality, so bear that in mind. Also please critique this disclaimer and where the bright line is, I have very little political experience and this is a genuine question I have, so any intentioned critique is helpful.