But I'd say in return that's a serious goal-post hike. When people write these sorts of articles and decry modern social media for "polarization", they are clearly claiming that it is creating it where it didn't exist before. It is a totally different problem if it is revealing something that has always existed in a way that is harder to ignore. The moral responsibility for Facebook et al creating polarization is much greater than for Facebook discovering the already-existing polarization.
Also, if one believes this is a problem to be solved, the solutions for "Facebook is creating polarization" and "Facebook is revealing already-existing polarization" are totally different. And wildly different in feasibility. There are absolutely real differences that emerge from the two possibilities. One situation could be solved by just basically shutting down the social Internet, albeit at great cost. (And other possibilities, but all at great cost.) The other... well... there hasn't been a lot of success at fundamentally changing human nature, and most serious attempts lately have caused more problems than they've solved.
In the case of FB, the question to me is whether or not the introduction of FB changes the dynamic.
If, say, phone and SMS-based activities simply shifted to FB, without any significant change in scope, scale, speed, use, or outcomes ... there's a case to be made for "the medium changed, but the behaviour didn't".
If the behaviour itself changes, in scope, scale, speed, use, adoption by specific groups, or outcomes, then that out becomes far smaller.
Put another way, if there's some extant potential, say a charge differential, or a water reservoir at elevation, and you provide a conductor or remove the barrier keeping it from flowing -- I'd call that a causal relationship.
Or are you saying that a dam failure resulting in a valley being flooded out is simple a realisation of the existing potential and polarisation of high and low elevations?
I'm not buying that.
Media enables. And if costs are reduced, it enables that which was simply not previously possible.
Also, if one believes this is a problem to be solved, the solutions for "Facebook is creating polarization" and "Facebook is revealing already-existing polarization" are totally different. And wildly different in feasibility. There are absolutely real differences that emerge from the two possibilities. One situation could be solved by just basically shutting down the social Internet, albeit at great cost. (And other possibilities, but all at great cost.) The other... well... there hasn't been a lot of success at fundamentally changing human nature, and most serious attempts lately have caused more problems than they've solved.