Mostly? Twitter -- or social media outlets like that. It caters to anger. It caters to instant hot takes. It rewards hasty opinions, has no time for context, and doesn't allow for conversation at all. I've brought this up before, so please forgive me -- it's the Letter to the Editor Rule. Few people, if content or happy with something, are driven to write a Letter to the Editor to compliment them. But anger? Anger is a motivator. Discontent inspires comments, and now comments can be made quicker, anonymously, and with less accountability than ever. The first Letter to the Editor the Post-Dispatch decided to publish about me joining the sports team here was a caustic one, ripping me for my ability to write. But at least that person had to put their name on it.
Now it's a Tweet, anonymously, and likely vulgar.
What you see in politics, you also see in sports, and the other way around, too -- and that has been true for a long, long time. It's not the majority of the time, but it's too often that a conversation via email or Twitter goes like this for me:
Fan: Asks a question, or presents an opinion.
Me: Answers question, or presents a fact that might refute that opinion.
Fan: Doesn't like the answer. Attacks me.
Me: But it's a fact.
Fan: Attacks me.
I think we have gotten to a place where people seek out the information that supports their initial, immediate belief rather than the facts that might inform a stronger opinion in the future. People don't like opinions to be challenged. They want them validated. Facts schmacts. And now we have so many outlets available via social media that if you want to find someone to validate your view, you will, whether it has any footing in facts or not.