Can you elaborate on your position? To me the opposite is far more obvious: the Internet has enabled people from all over the world to meet, learn from each other, become friends. "The Russians/Chinese/whatever" are no longer just a faceless group of people who are trying to take over the world - they're the person you worked with a few years ago, the friend you've played games with for years, the open source developer you've been collaborating with.

▲

aleph_minus_one 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> the Internet has enabled people from all over the world to meet, learn from each other, become friends. "The Russians/Chinese/whatever" are no longer just a faceless group of people who are trying to take over the world - they're the person you worked with a few years ago

This is the statement of the "contact hypothesis"

> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contact_hypothesi...

Be aware that there is also evidence for the negative contact hypothesis:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contact_hypothesi...

"Stefania Paolini, Jake Harwood, and Mark Rubin (2010) proposed that intergroup contact may have more negative than positive effects on prejudice, because it makes outgroup members' social group more salient during encounters. [...] Negative sentiments triggered by proximity are also described as NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard)."

In other words: it can also happen that if you get to know some people from other countries more, you begin to hate them more.

	▲	squigz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		While I'd agree that (at least for some people) the outgroups' social group would become a bigger issue during encounters, I would argue that the familiarity brought on by that hypothesis would not only reduce the number and size of "outgroups", but also reduce the number of people who would react negatively to "outgroups," as well as their susceptibility to race/nation/etc-based propaganda (which, interestingly, your 2nd link seems to suggest) Anyway, while I think there's some truth here, I do believe the benefits far outweigh the costs - in this instance, but also for the Internet in general, when you consider the other benefits (and risks of course) it brings - accessibility to education, for example.

▲

danielbln 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's certainly one facet of the Internet. Another is the Internet being a tool for nation state actors and grifters to undermine, lead astray and pit against each other large parts of the population, plus its uncanny ability to give rise and reach to the most abstruse ideas like anti vax and flat earth and alt right and incels and Q anon and all that (which usually circles back to aforementioned actors using it as a tool to further their interests).

	▲	squigz 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Historically, citizens have been much more at the whims of the rich and powerful's propaganda, and were often never exposed to differing viewpoints, let alone cultures other than their own. Now, at least, we have those things. (I also find it notable that you'd include "alt right" in that list, as if there's no crazies on the far left.)