(English is not my native language, but I'm human too. There it goes)
Rousseau pointed out that the primitive parties had two simultaneous movements: that of multiplying individual's powers when the group purpose gave identity to each one, and that of the recognition of differences by distinct roles and levels of received attention. The first movement, spontaneus, would reinforce culture and maybe give rise to nations, while the latter would bring the need to regulate individual actions, like the state. Looks like the nation is the active force when some individual or group want to impose its ideology over another, and the state is the reactive force that will hold individuality and make you live according to how you present yourself to others.
At least under such view, my response would be yes, tribal sentiments remains in despite of communication improvements, because reproducing our own subjectivity involves affirmation of elements of identity originated from groups, and simultaneously implies the negation of the Other. The exception would be the case of recognition of our common humanity, but it seems to require more than communication, that is, it requires real interest in one another.
Also in a public space like a forum you can be more sentiment-driven or be driven by citizenship principles, and maybe it's not a coincidence that hatred discourses are more likely to nationalisms. BUT I have this spinozist tendency to see that all actions are driven by affections, including the pretense neutral and scientific action based by some universal principle.
Spinoza proposes that hatred is simply the decrease of potency accompanied by the idea of its cause. So a radical and non-reflected hatred of some group or individual is a very inadequate and shallow idea of the cause of discomfort, but a moderate discourse can be perfectly caused by hatred too, even if it seems more rational or non-racist. I found brilliant the citation of Martin L. King by chewybrian:
who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace
which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods
of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of
time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of
good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.