I can't really see what you're trying to convey. Much of your comment is internally contradictory. For example: > Well, according to the original post, we've s

I can't really see what you're trying to convey. Much of your comment is internally contradictory. For example: > Well, according to the original post, we've seen an increase in support for suppression of objectionable speech ("cancel culture"). We've seen an increase in support for violence against those with differing opinions (antifa, etc), and more to the point the black-and-white labeling of opposition that would lead you to feel a bunch of idiot far-right trolls count as nazis and thus deserve to be punched. > If you don't think the internet aided the rise of these opinions, you probably don't spend much time on lefty internet. Here you're saying that the spectrum of allowed views is narrowing, and there are greater objections to otherwise acceptable ideas. > Well, perhaps you're right that the word "radical" is wrong. What we're seeing maybe could be described as an expansion of the overton window in all directions, which makes total sense given the nature of the internet vs the nature of mass media. > I mean apparently even being a flat earther is now a viable mainstream opinion And in the subsequent section here, you're saying that the range of acceptable ideas is actually expanding in all directions. I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to say, since this directly contradicts the previous section. The point I'm making is that much of the "radical" ideas seen online are not radical at all - or at least aren't new or unprecedented. People are seeing outlandish views on the internet and concluding, "look! The internet is making this movement spread!". In reality people with those views already existed, and there's no evidence to say that the internet increases the prevalence of those views. You have anti-vaxxers today, and back in the 90s you had faith healers and other denial of modern medicine.