This sums up my first thought when I read the headline. Perhaps the underlying societal problem is that many hold in contempt ideas too complex for sound bite summarization? So, changes in the ways we converse are merely a symptom of this underlying change? How many times have you watched a televised interview or sat in a meeting as someone was explaining an idea and become angered when the speaker was interrupted -- not to clarify, but to change the topic? I find myself saying in my head, "Let him speak!" I have no problem with others silencing some babbling fool, but to shut someone up simply because the idea at hand requires nuanced explanation severely limits the spectrum of ideas we ever will be able to consider.
Perhaps, much like when people don't stand up and say something when another makes a bigoted joke, those of us sitting silently are partially to blame? I often say, "I'd really like to hear more about what Suzy thinks!", but only "often" in that I do so much more frequently than others. What would it take in, say, a company (or even department) to establish via social proof that those opposing complex thought simply because it is complex are the unacceptable ones?