In reading Paul Tighe's The Challenge for the Church in a digital culture, I realized how the vast amount of available information can actually confirm opinions. You would think that the new social networks would make people closer. It can, but there is a trend to gravitate towards people and sites that will agree with you.
In religious and political opinion sites (two areas where passion resides) people read sites that support their ideas. They refuse to read alternate views. Eventually, people become polarized. If you try to express a moderate opinion, then both sides attack you.
And when arguments get heated, attacking the person who disagrees with you will result. Of course religion and politics are passionate subjects. There is good in every argument. The best way to approach these topics is to be wary.
Archbishop Caput also cautions that sound bites, the viral capability, and questionable images, have the ability to be generated with such speed that by the time a response is formulated, the damage has been done. Thinking isn't fostered. Reacting is.
What do you think? There is enough truth about the criticism of cyberspace to make everyone wary, but I think it's too new to get a handle on it. Doesn't everything have some good and bad? At least it is interesting to see what the future changes will be. Approach cyberspace intelligently. Think before you read and write. And pray before you think.