Having only radicalizing echo chambers that have scooted the range of acceptable discourse for different large groups so far they don’t overlap is …not going well. Per your example.
The idea that if you can get people off of shared platforms they go away and you don’t have to engage with their ideas doesn’t actually work. You both retreat, you both radicalize into weird civic religions, and then you both vote. And then the last 5 years happen.
There are a bunch of people with reprehensible ideas floating around, but handing enormous, entrenched private interests editorial control of the (only remaining, de-facto) public sphere because it’s locally beneficial to some shared causes is probably not a solution that will go well for people who would like to avoid oligarchy. I’m not claiming to know what is.
