Social identity is a big one, and insofar as social media dispenses with the subtle social cues that we rely on to communicate and emote, I think we're stuck with this if we're going to rely heavily on public communication devoid of facial expression.
Also it's somewhat obvious that a certain side of the political spectrum has an obsession with literal enumeration. I'd be interested to see if there's a conservative parallel to the growing list that so many feel obligated to put forth: pronouns, vaccination status, race, political identity, gender, sex, romance orientation, mask-affinity, mental health identity, astrological sign, etc.
As a qualifier, I say this as a gay guy who's often in queer social circles and it seems to me not only pathological but cognitively dissonant: in a sphere that claims that labels and normativity are bad, they then go on making an ever-growing list of definitions of existence. None of this is pleasurable - it's robotic and authoritative. There is an obsession with definition instead of just living their lives and embracing the ineffable and infinitely complex nature of life.
Freedom relies on distributed intelligence and responsibility. Without that, we either get authoritarianism or a failed society. Politically, I want to live in a society without mask mandates because everybody wears one in their own self interest. Apparently we need a lot more critical thinking to be at that point, and so authoritarianism steps in.
Furthermore, a lot of the authoritarianism hasn't been actual mandates - for instance, there have been no "lockdowns" apart from CA early on. The same lack of critical thinking causes people to perceive government recommendations as mandatory, ultimately resolving the ambiguity in a productive manner.
What I wonder about is how that came to be - and how that outcome can be avoided in the future.
I can see why this happens if there's a policy that helps some and hurts others to greater and lesser degrees; so people might support or oppose it.
Other policies have a snowball like quality about them - where once some amount of support or opposition arises they attract more of the same because of coalition logic. I support X and Z because I care about them. I support Y because the supporters and Y also care about X and Z.
The first case is reasonable enough but the second one is toxic; not just because people will go against their interests (not in the sense of things that are good for them but things that they do not support) but because no one will ever admit to others and generally not to themselves about just why they support a policy.