An example of this is I have one person, who I don't actually think I know, that posts constantly on Facebook that Hilary (when the election was ongoing) was going to kill everyone in the military and that she was going to ruin the United States. Similarly, I have a friend, who I actually do know very well, who posted that Trump was going to cause World War Three and everything in the US as we know it was going to go back to precolonial times. I had a strong desire to link up these two individuals in a group text and share their posts with each other, seeing as though they were so different; but, for the sake of my own friendship with one, I decided against the idea. This, I believe is Dissoi Logoi. For every argument, there is another side. For the most part, I find that many of these arguments are filter bubbled to location. I can tell ideological polarization is different from people in different geographic locations. For the most part, a degree of polarization is okay. Polarization, especially political, can be extremely influenced by where individuals grow up. It becomes an issue, to me, when polarization of views becomes too extreme and risks acts of violence. For example, the KKK and Al Qaeda.
For the most part, I believe that algorithms on social media and the internet do create stronger levels of polarization in people. However, I don't believe it is necessary negative, I just feel it limits other perspectives from peoples every day world. Even if people post their opinions, that are different from mine, I enjoy reading them and don't unfollow people. To me, unfollowing people who have different opinions from your own, shows a level of narrow mindedness and ignorance. I enjoy dissoi logoi and believe that more people need to be exposed to the idea of hearing an argument from a different perspective.