system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: On social media, more people should attack bad ideas/posts from people from their own tribe

Couple of semantics to get out of the way.

1. By social media, I am talking about forums/websites such as facebook, twitter, reddit where people exchange ideas and debate about different topics.  I am hoping that this CMV does not devolve down to arguing over what is and what isn't social media.
2. By "attack bad ideas/posts", I am referring to the act of vehemently arguing against the person/post in question while being level-headed and abiding by the proper decorum of public discourse.
3. By "tribe", I am referring to common groupings that people use for certain conversations.  For example, when it comes to US political debates, this might be Democrats vs Republicans.  When it comes to certain religion debates, this might be atheists vs Christians.   As such, an example of attacking people from their own tribe online would be a liberal attacking a fellow liberal who makes a bad post (or conservative attacking a fellow conservative).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

So with the semantics out of the way, let's get to the point.  When it comes to important debates and topics (e.g. police violence in the US), there are usually two groups of people who come in contact virtually (e.g. in this case, liberals and conservatives), and heated argument pursues.  Inevitably, there are various different types of people jumping in on the debate from both sides.  What is commonly observed in these online debates is that bad arguments and intellectually dishonest posts made by someone from some group A are usually only attacked by people from some other group B.  It is rarely the case that people from group A attack their own when it comes to bad arguments/posts (now, for the CMV, we can discuss whether my observation is true, and I would be ready to reconsider on frequently this occurs).   In many of the cases, the smart people just ignore these bad posts from their own side and attack the other side.

Now, I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong and I think there is a good argument to be had on why one should be tribal (e.g. need to focus on winning the war of ideas).  But I am thinking that it might be healthy if people who are pretty level-headed and intelligent about certain topics actually attack these bad posts from people on their own sides.  The main reason being as follows.

(1) Truth and intellectual honesty matters.   Many times, these fringe people from our own sides resort to dirty tactics, distortion of facts, strawman tactics to attack the other side.  And I believe that there needs to be some sort of base level agreement amongst the majority that this should not be tolerated regardless of the said person is on our own side or some other side.  And it doesn't take too much of an effort to point this out if you are a power user (e.g. "I am actually in group A but here, your data is wrong, and you should consider editing your post.").  It only takes 2-3 seconds to type that up.

(2) Attacking bad ideas would demotivate these fringe people.  In social media, I would not be surprised if there is a certain level of confidence instilled in these posters knowing that roughly 50% of the people will "back them up" due to the tribalism.  As such, there is not much of a social penalty of being shunned by 80-90% of the people in a given forum for creating bad posts.  However, if it were the case that people attacked bad ideas from their own group, then I suspect that people would be more careful about making good/bad arguments.  This would clean up the conversations quite a bit as a good filter will be in place to penalize/criticize bad ideas.

(3) Negative feedback loop that leads to more tribalism would be reduced.  Sometimes, I think people overrestimate the degree in which there are extreme voices amongst different groups.  When I talk to people in real life, most are normal people who can have a healthy conversation.  However, when we view social media, the bad actors from both groups get amplified and even the average person (due to the amplification) might think that there is much more dissent amongst the groups.  This leads to a nasty feedback loop that leads to more dissent as people think that the disagreement is much more heated than what is actual.  By nipping the bad actors initially, it would cool down the conversation and reduce the unnecessary temperature rise in conversation.

Conclusion:  rarely is the case that smart/level-headed people attack posts/people from their "own side" when it comes to online discourses.  This should be encouraged as there are benefits to it (my points (1), (2), and (3)).
gpt
Let's view this from a game theory perspective. If your group does this, and the other group does not, you could run the risk of the other group abusing this by driving a wedge between the sub-group, making your group splinters, and weaker.

A temporary example would be Russia, China, and Iran, using online trolls to exacerbate the current situation. Or in a 2 party system, if one party is more united than the other, the more united party could take a more moderate stance, to absorb more moderate voters from the opposing party, without risking losing their fringe voters.

This is most successful in divide and conquer, divide the opposing group into sub-groups and make the sub-groups fight one another, just like in in colonialism.