Ever since I became an opinion columnist two-and-a-half years ago, I have had front-row seats to how diluted and disjointed online conversations have become. I always strive to write with nuance, but some users respond only to the short excerpts, often without reading the full article. When opinions are formed based on a few lines taken out of context, the richer discourse that could have taken place is compromised. What often follows are brief and emotional exchanges that rarely go beyond the surface. Instead of striving to understand and dissect full ideas, people settle for sound bites and simplified versions of one another’s positions. In an effort to weigh in quickly on an issue, the opportunity to learn and deepen the dialogue is lost amid our tendency to react, rather than respond thoughtfully.

A friend, who also writes a weekly column, once advised me to stop reading the comments. As both an educator and a social scientist, however, I cannot look away. The educator in me cannot help but want to guide the audience toward the more complete picture that they are missing out on, while the social scientist in me feels compelled to analyze how and why our online conversations have become quite fragmented.

Much has been said about how social media has led to the demise of proper discourse. In an attention economy, online platforms are incentivized by the way people’s negative emotions translate into higher engagement. It has even given rise to a phenomenon called “rage-baiting,” wherein some people deliberately create content that provokes indignation.