I fully expect in the future for there to be a segment of the population that chooses to "drop out" of the always-connected digital social life for these reasons. And I don't just mean giving up Facebook, but going back to analog social circles only, as well as ignoring those who are still connected (and hooked) digitally.

I like to compare it to smoking. Imagine everyone got addicted to smoking, but you eventually wanted to quit because you realize how bad and addicting it is. Even if you quit though you'd still be hanging out with other smokers mostly, and breathing in that 2nd hand smoke. The only true way out would be to both quit and only hang out with non-smokers.

This won't be everyone of course. Like smoking, toxicity and polarization are too addictive, but I can see there becoming a counterculture that simply rejects all of it altogether.

This stuff is almost 100% online. It's not invading your real life unless you invite it in. Switch the computer off and disengage, and suddenly you're immune. Someone right now might be badmouthing me on Facebook or Twitter, and I don't care. It doesn't matter because I'm not on these sites.

EDIT: clarity

"That ESA guy's shirt is sexist." - Too many to count

"That nobel prize winner made inappropriate jokes because one person said so and should be sacked." - The BBC

"That Covington kid is a nazi and is guilty af." - Too many again, even after contradicting material came out.

"Jussie Smolliez was nearly lynched by MAGA hats!" - A US presidential candidate.

"Zoe Quinn is a credible game developer with no track record of either scams or BPD at all, and certainly no blood on her hands." - The Guardian

None of the people behind these lies were anonymous, in fact they were quite proud they got to broadcast then.

And their audience loved being given permissable targets for their 2 minutes hate.

Almost no one wants to acknowledge that before the right radicalized online, the left radicalized both offline and on and pretended this was civilized.

what do you think the function of parents, religion and society is if not to observe people and watch them? That's what socialization is. Stake in a community and incentive to adjust to social norms, because the consequence of anti-social behaviour is loss of status or punishment.

It's completely rational for individuals to behave selfishly under conditions of anonymity because they face no social consequences. The way humans are conditioned to behave what we perceive to be reasonable is through social interaction and peers, that is to say, to be watched.

The model many people seem to have is that 95% of people under conditions of internet anonymity are good citizens and that the trolls are the aberration. But actually the trolls are just the example of what essentially happens to everyone if they're taken out of what is the natural human condition, which is social interaction including persistent identity and stakeholdership in some community.

Look at the amount of moderation the average Reddit community needs. Everybody is meaner on the internet, people are mean even on facebook just because they don't talk face to face. I remember a woman in Germany who posted that someone should set a refugee home on fire under her actual name, several such cases existed. They obviously all lost their jobs but it shows how maladjusted we are if we type into our keyboards.

I think the difference between extreme trolls and regular people is just to what degree you live online. If you have a regular social life you're probably not that bad of a person online, if you spend your entire day online you end up with 4chan. But I think everybody feels the bad consequences of semi-anonymous or virtual communication.

https://www.reddit.com/r/insanepeoplefacebook/ would like to disagree.