> Can we just agree that it's not evil that people get a choice now where they didn't before?

It depends. I find the fact that people can isolate themselves into communities where it's very easy to censor out any possible dissenters and dissenting opinions to be pretty damn damaging to our society.

That's always been the case. You can just as easily ignore all the people outside your religion, specific church, household, or even everyone other than yourself, and that's been the case since we've had those communities. This is just another case of something looking slightly different on the surface but actually being more of the same. The way to fight isolation is not to restrict choice of community, but to reach out to other communities and individuals and make them feel welcome.

> This is just another case of something looking slightly different on the surface but actually being more of the same.

That can be said about every development ever. But it being more easy / efficient can bring out existing systems out of balance at some point, once counter-acting forces are overwhelmed... especially if those don't improve (as fast).

> reach out to other communities and individuals and make them feel welcome.

That doesn't seem to be a winning strategy in current US politics. And the shared consensus seems to be eroding fast. I understand there are a lot of additional problems (like the shitty two party voting system) feeding into that, even strengthening each other. But finding a shared consensus seems absolutely necessary when living with other people in the same city/country/planet at a time were we can dramatically effect each others lives.

> That doesn't seem to be a winning strategy in current US politics.

There are lots of different parties between different constituencies that are incentivized to sow discord between them. I'm not sure any olive branches that are offered are even seen by the other side given all the blades flying about.

I understand! The ease with which people can isolate themselves is dangerous, damaging, and frankly terrifying.

Yet, is it possible that this isn't remotely new? Is it possible that digital communities enable people to find communities where they are not pushed out, instead of being coerced into ones where they are? And that perhaps many people have had the experience not of isolating themselves in dangerous and damaging ways, but of being isolated by the people who are supposed to be their community?

You're absolute right about the danger. It's just possible that there might be some room for subtlety here.

This is the balance on enabling people to escape from communities in which they are censored, to allow those ostracized for their beliefs can find those who will respect them despite, or even because of, the beliefs they hold.

I believe that our tendency to view unpopular beliefs a stain upon a person's immutable character is a more fundamental (as in, earlier in the causal chain) cause of the damage to society you describe.

The phrase "isolate themselves into communities" strikes me oddly. I'm glad to have more options for finding communities I might be able to be a part of.

What makes it "our" society? I've never felt like a part of it.

Unfortunately, by simply existing you have an effect on your local area. Divesting yourself from the local community is limiting your stake in it and can make your action in the local area less accountable. Ownership and community are historically ways to have accountability in a geographical area.