The widely held belief of the echo chamber has been bothering me for a while now. I don’t question the phenomenon itself. It’s happened often enough; I totally agree this is a thing. What bugs me though is the idea that the root cause is members of a group agreeing too much.
Agreement is good wtf. Consensus should be a welcome occasional checkpoint. How are you even supposed to build healthy communities if you don’t share some common ground, like say equality for all. Sealioning is not a vaccine against radicalization. If anything the constant bickering from contrarians has the opposite effect.
Diversity may be a better sign of healthy community. Diversity of age, origins, gender, whatever. I don’t believe such a community turns into a radicalization timebomb for being like-minded. We need shared values to build upon, lest loneliness swallows us all.
Nevertheless I feel that obsessing over the homogeneous aspect of an echo chamber is mistaking the symptoms for the essence. My intuition is that the danger is in the discourse itself and to a certain extent in the platform used. I can’t say I’ve made up my mind on the specifics though.
What do you think? It’s OK if you disagree lol 🤪
when people say “echo chamber” with negative connotations, what they actually mean is “a place that has a consensus reality, and I disagree with that consensus reality”.
a forum for geologists bans flat-earthers. the flat-earthers will call it an “echo chamber”. they’ll ask why the geologists are so afraid to have their beliefs questioned. if they’re so sure the earth is round, shouldn’t they be willing to debate it?
having a consensus reality is good, actually. and enforcement of that consensus is usually necessary to maintain the health of the community. geologists want to talk about…actual geology stuff. if flat-earthers are allowed, they’ll turn every thread into a debate about flat vs. round earth, and it will drown out the actual more interesting conversations the geologists were there for.
when someone says “such-and-such is an echo chamber” you should look to see what the consensus reality of that place is, and what aspects of that consensus reality the complainer disagrees with.
recently, I’ve seen a lot of people calling Bluesky an echo chamber, for example. if you dig into it…usually they posted some transphobic bullshit and got blocked by half the site. Bluesky isn’t perfect, but one thing they’ve gotten right so far is “trans people exist, and have the right to exist, and to live their lives free of harassment” is a pretty strong part of their consensus reality. people who disagree with that are inevitably going to run back to Twitter and whine about Bluesky being an echo chamber.
I agree completely. The idea that all of humanity is going to be interacting everywhere is one of the things that is the reason people don’t like the internet. Its natural to hang with folks you like or places that you feel comfortable. internet communities should be the same. some folks who are broader in their tastes will be in more things and others will not. this is why I think its so silly that folks who are fine with the idea of subscribing seem to see blocking as some sin. its the same thing. its two types of filtering and everyone should use them as they see fit to make an experience they enjoy.