It has become almost conventional wisdom that social media is tearing societies apart, trapping users in "echo chambers" and encouraging hostility toward anyone who disagrees. There is considerable evidence that online platforms can intensify conflict. However, the claim that social media has made people less tolerant attributes too much to technology alone. I believe social media amplifies existing divisions and rewards intolerant behaviour, but it does not create intolerance by itself, and in some respects it exposes people to more diverse views than ever before.

The case for the statement is strong in several respects. Platforms are designed to maximise engagement, and content that provokes anger tends to be shared more widely than calm, nuanced discussion. As a result, users frequently encounter the most extreme versions of opposing views, which can make the other side seem more hostile and unreasonable than most of its members actually are. Anonymity and physical distance also make it easier to insult strangers in ways people would rarely do face to face.

Nevertheless, the echo-chamber image is somewhat exaggerated. Several large studies have found that most social media users encounter at least some content from the other side of political debates, often more than they would through a single newspaper or television channel. The problem may be less that people never meet opposing views than that they meet them in a hostile, mocking form, which tends to harden rather than soften their positions.

History also suggests caution about blaming technology. Intense political polarisation existed long before the internet: partisan newspapers in the nineteenth century were often far more abusive than today's posts, and many societies experienced violent divisions without any digital media at all. In some countries, polarisation began rising years before social media became widespread, which indicates that economic insecurity, changes in political parties and other forces are also at work.

Social media has also expanded tolerance in certain ways. It has allowed members of minority groups to share their experiences directly with large audiences, sometimes changing public attitudes on issues where they had previously been invisible. Young people in conservative communities have found information and support that broadened their understanding of others.

In conclusion, social media is better understood as an amplifier than as a cause. It magnifies both the worst and the best of human behaviour, and its effect on tolerance depends heavily on how platforms are designed and how users choose to engage. Reforms that reward thoughtful discussion rather than outrage could make it a force for understanding rather than division.

I partly agree that social media has made people less tolerant of different opinions, but I think it is not the only cause.

Social media often shows people posts that make them angry, because these posts get more likes and shares. When people see extreme opinions from the other side, they may start to think that everyone who disagrees with them is bad. People also write rude comments online because they do not see the other person's face.

However, social media also allows people to see many different opinions from around the world. Some people learn about other cultures and groups that they never met before, which can make them more tolerant.

In addition, people were already divided about politics and religion before social media existed, so social media is not the only reason for intolerance.

In conclusion, social media can increase intolerance because of the way it works, but it can also help people understand others. It depends on how people use it and how companies design their websites.

I agree that social media make people less tolerant.

On Facebook people fight in comments every day and they use bad words. They only follow people who agree with them so they never see other opinions.

Before social media people talked face to face and they were more polite.

So social media is bad for tolerance and people should use it less.