I think that there is a need to discern the difference between "tribalism" in a colloquial sense -- for instance, being part of a group of people sharing a common occupation or interest, or simply implying large numbers of people coming together - and "tribalism" with the more defining characteristics of deeply shared loyalty, shared values, and importantly, shared physical rituals which underscore a philosophy that values the imposition of discipline on group dynamics.

In considering "digital tribalism", while it is true that the means of communication now differ on platform and modus operandi, perhaps we risk over-valuing the intellectual assets of any grouping and underplay the significance of actual physical interaction (apart from fingers flitting across the computer keyboard!) in generating "tribal consciousness and loyalty"; the flip-side of this coin is that it becomes harder for any agency then to expect that its members will unstintingly exalt its relative superiority amongst other agencies "from cradle to grave". The sanctuary that feeds the soul - arguably the heart of true tribalism - is illusory in the notion of "digital tribalism". Momentum for social, economic or political causes, much less products, will prove short-lived, therefore. The key to ensuring that any force for good aspired to, remains meaningful, after the initial shared consciousness, lies in the awareness and acknowledgement of the bonding value of materiality (in structures, in physical touch and interface) to the richly multi-sensory human psyche.