I agree, very confusing. I think the gist is something like "people and news institutions from opposite poles avoid contact with each other when there's polari

I agree, very confusing. I think the gist is something like "people and news institutions from opposite poles avoid contact with each other when there's polarization, creating partisan echo chambers". Which seems to reverse the arrow of causation relative to what the headline suggests. Polarization seems to come first, then the news institutions become partisan so that they enter the cozy echo chamber of one side, rather than being exposed to fire from both sides in the no man's land in the middle. I have a lot of experience with Twitter and I don't think conflict is minimized there. There's definitely a lot of "interaction" between opposing sides. Mostly of the form "look at this stupid and evil thing the other side said, let's reaffirm our correctness and righteousness by mocking and attacking it". The reason there isn't meaningful interaction between opposing sides is because they both have caricatures of the other side that the other side rejects. A caricatures B, B rejects the caricature, A embraces the caricature all the more because it expresses the real truth that dishonest B refuses to admit, etc.