I think it is actually even more to the story than this...
The way people speak and how they choose to present their ideas reveals much more information about them than what they explicitly say. I know this sounds like a regurgitated platitude, but I'll explain how this is relevant to the cultural atmosphere of social media today.
Today I was watching a podcast on a popular social topic and I noticed something: The person who was making his point decided to start with his strongest points of evidence first, then move on to more loose points of evidence in order to make his claim.
This is actually atypical in a debate/discussion. Generally, people want to make their weakest points first and then conclude with their strongest points. This is because they want their strongest point to be the last thing they say so it is fresh in the minds of their audience.
The reason he was starting with his strongest points first is because he wanted to establish a level of irrefutable authority to his claim before making it. He choose to use statistical evidence or arguments in peer-reviewed papers.
People do this all the time nowadays, and the reason why is actually because of a subconscious level of fear and this is what I'm seeing.
Most people aren't afraid of having their ideas challenged. They are afraid that they will look like a fool and thus invite attacks subsequent attacks on their character. This is a natural fear, and is why most people don't speak out against injustice or wrongdoings.
Subsequently, people talk past each other. Instead of making substantial arguments, they reiterate safe positions or attempt to frame their argument as a safe position. They don't stray from peer-reviewed opinions or forms of irrefutable evidence. Nothing of value is accomplished in those discussions.
And from my experience, arguments that are considered culturally "safe" are not determined by the people, they are determined by those with power.
People are too atomized and free willed to come to a consensus on even trivial matters, so how are we all able to collectively agree that X topic is morally right or wrong? It isn't because we agree, its because those that disagree are too afraid to speak out, because to do so would go against the monopoly on violence.
Around all social media platforms, there is this subconscious fear that we could say something and someone will be able to target us for it. Likewise, the endless anger we see on places like X are actually reflections of fear.
That fear isn't here on NOSTR. You can say whatever you want, and there isn't anything anyone can do about it because that opinion is going to stay. So if you want it to look bad your only choices are to debate it because deplatforming it isn't going to work anymore.
Once people start shedding that fear, I think the internet will be able to fulfill its original vision which is to allow people to educate each other rather than serve as a pawn in some politician's chess match.
