Is the lack of in depth discussion a result of social media?

I've been seeing a lot of discussion on Ukraine and, on both sides, there is a host of shallow analysis and bumper sticker talk that really doesn't help (but, as it were, it seems to be what gets clicks so people keep saying the same things over and over). I'd blame tech and SM, but really, this kinda crap was there before. It's jus the dumb and loud who seem to lead the groups or get the spotlight (even some discussions that have professors are pretty weak). And I would like the facts, but you also get people claiming a certain set of facts (acknowledging them) is the talking point of the enemy (mainly this is coming from those who oppose the American MSM view, but I've see it both ways online). Again, that's a form of control and an easy win in terms of arguing, but it isn't getting to the truth. Kinda annoying tbf. Hell even Chomsky seems to get hung up on various sets of facts or points in history that need more context (even if he is providing a good amount of context compared to the MSM chants).
Enjoyed it? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. paypal.me/nlowhim Throw some change in there & help cover the costs of running this thing. You can use paypal or a credit card.