Being someone whose friends very clearly lean to one side, while generally not having a developed interest in politics, I really want to push back on this. Unless you intentionally talk to people whose views oppose yours (which won't happen by default, people sort themselves into tribes) real person communication is very prone towards dunking on people who aren't even there or might very well not even exist. Cue polarization.

In my view, if someone is reading text for stuff they disagree on that's already a win. It's better than the default.

I disagree. Being exposed to the opposition's views can very easily be a polarizing force in of itself. If it's not carefully curated, in all likelihood one's exposure to the other side is going to be dominated by the more extreme parts of that side. And then it's not an unreasonable leap to go think "if those self-proclaimed moderate people tolerate these more radical elements, then they're all evil".

Which I can't necessarily argue is a wrong thought process to follow. I used to be able to pretend that the average person on the right was merely a brainwashed idiot. Now, with the internet and rise of fascism, I have to contend with the fact that they know they're brainwashed idiots and are happy about it.

it does feel like there's been a slow shift from the Internet being a place to make friends to a place to make enemies.

The article that sticks in my mind is "Internet of Beefs": https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/01/16/the-internet-of-beefs/ - ironically I have vague memories of the author being on the wrong side of various beefs, but the description of the phenomenon is spot-on.

Some corners of bluesky are resisting this with trying to form the habit of aggresive blocking of clickbait and anyone who comes into your mentions to beef. But overall it's gone horribly mainstream, everyone is just promoting themselves by whom they have beef with.