There are a couple things happening here: 1) We benefit from social media lumping voices together because it's easier to argue against and internally reason wi

There are a couple things happening here: 1) We benefit from social media lumping voices together because it's easier to argue against and internally reason with. They aren't individuals with individual experiences, they're the unwashed entitled masses crying on social media spreading their lies. See how easy that was? We do this a lot for everything we don't agree with. 2) Spend any time anywhere and it's easy to start seeing "narratives". Online bubbles are real: most people do not comment on any given platform. Therefore, commenters are already a bubble in themselves. So we do what humans do and start seeking patterns, and then extract these patterns into narratives. Note: this does not mean that there aren't groups of people who do share whatever "narrative" idea, but the reality is their views on it tend to be more nuanced than the narrative we've imagined in our minds. For example, 'America sucks and is failing' could be a common vague narrative people share, but you would get so many varied explanations that it stops existing as such a simple narrative until you reduce it again into a vague narrative. 3) Social media has its pros and cons, but one of its neutrals is it forces people from entirely different groups to interact with each other. This winds up becoming world shattering a lot of the times, because as humans we tend to create these internal stories that justifies our world views. We seek out things that justify these internal stories. We seek out people who reflect what we want, and this feeds into #2 and makes it harder to break out of. So, if you are optimistic you'll seek others who are also optimistic, and when social media does its recommendation/random thing, you'll encounter people who do not share this view and then it leads right back into #1 turning this into tribes. A beautiful self powering triangle if you will.