I think I agree with the title of the article, and a lot of the content. For example, this bit about strong ties versus weak ties is an interesting and succinct

I think I agree with the title of the article, and a lot of the content. For example, this bit about strong ties versus weak ties is an interesting and succinct way to frame something I think many users of social media have experienced: > As people shift their attention from strong to weak ties, the resulting connections become more dangerous. Strong ties are strong because their reliability has been affirmed over time. The input or information one might receive from a family member or co-worker is both more trusted and more contextualized. By contrast, the things you hear a random person say at the store (or on the internet) are—or should be—less intrinsically trustworthy. But weak ties also produce more novelty, precisely because they carry messages people might not have seen before. The evolution of a weak tie to a strong one is supposed to take place over an extended time, as an individual tests and considers the relationship and decides how to incorporate it into their life. However, I am also worried that the author and perhaps The Atlantic (+ its readers) are motivated by one particular political lens, which is the excesses of the political right. The examples of the "toxic dump of garbage" listed earlier in the article make that clear. However, the problems created by social media also create extremism on the left. Examining those symptoms (in addition to issues from the right) may provide additional root causes that are also worth considering.