but echo chambers are cool in a way that goes beyond politics. it provides perceptible feelings of unity, belongingness, and validity to those that seek them. apes together strong kind of deal.
and since politics is about social issues, I don’t see why not.
Given the hyper-stigmatized, hyper-partisan approach to… well, a lot of things these days, not just US politics, engaging with those you politically disagree with is likely to not just produce calm disagreements but sharp, even vicious statements that your entire worldview/lifestyle/culture/ethnicity/whatever is literally the stuff of pure evil, and you are an absolutely terrible person for adhering to it. No nuance, no consideration, no empathy.
On a different tack, consider that strong rejection/disagreement is shown to activate the same centers in your brain which are associated with sharp physical pain. To your brain, being slapped in the face conversationally and slapped in the face physically produce extremely similar results.
With these two points in mind, consider: Why would people choose to expose themselves to environments which promote something their brain interprets as actual, physical harm?
Unfortunately, the current palette of social media options don’t really offer spaces for nuanced, thoughtful discussion which doesn’t begin with people screaming their hostility to what they disagree with. It’s a big of a chicken-and-egg question whether that’s a cause or an effect, but the net result is creation of an environment which our pain-avoiding brains guide our choices away from people we disagree with.
Why would people choose to expose themselves to environments which promote something their brain interprets as actual, physical harm?
People commonly have a framework where they think of the slap as having kind of, occurred beforehand, right, and then they see themselves as slapping back whenever they respond, which is another part of why political discourse is so polarized and bad faith basically at all times.
That’s a fair point too; if you go in anticipating a conversational slap, you’re in a defensive posture from the start.
This reinforces my feeling that setting out to specifically create that no-slapping environment from the start is critical, but it also adds in another twist and problem: There’s increasing evidence that political “language” between various groups is diverging. In other words, ~20 years ago people used the same words to mean the same things, even when they disagreed. Now people on different sides of an issue use identical words to mean totally different things - including some that can be perceived as a verbal slap.
I’ve been tooting that horn for a while, but it’s a pretty hard point to translate into real political discourse with people. I try to weasel out of it, but at some point, people get really fed up and want you to “state your actual opinions”, or otherwise will just bully you relentlessly. Basically, I’m just saying that with any change of opinion, there’s going to be, probably, some necessary amount of discomfort. I guess my extrapolation from that would probably be that it’s a better policy as a whole if people just stop taking the slap so personally or so passionately. Better policy if your face goes numb, easier to work with, rather than handcuffing everyone, ja feel?
I dunno but there’s also definitely an amount by which that political polarization is strictly due to social media algorithms keeping people in bubbles where they’re constantly drip fed their own personalized optimal ratio of ragebait to wholesome garbage. It’s kind of inevitable that anyone starts to lose it, if they’ve been confined to their schizo microculture for long enough.
One whole “echo chamber” was built on stigmatizing the mainstream news which by definition means they’re pushing alternative news.
The only news I’m interested in are the facts. I avoid opinion articles or “framing” as much as I can.
If we’re calling factual reporting an echo chamber then fine. I guess the answer to your question for me is I like my echo chamber because the truth matters.
The “echo chamber” narrative only serves to legitimize and “both sides” bullshit.
Because the opposite echo chamber is filled with lying liars who lie? ;)
You can’t take someone from an echo chamber, present them with facts, and change their mind. In fact, the opposite is true. They double down on what they think they already know.
I’ll tell you why I’m pretty liberal with my block button and cool with my echo chamber. There are people out there who want me dead for liking my same sex. My trans friends are being legislated against / threatened with violence not because of science or health, but because of feelings and religion. I have family that emigrated legally being exposed to horrific racism and the threat of violence.
Do you support human rights? Or do you support death to the “other” ? Makes my choices easy. Not to mention I prefer actual truth to my information sources, not tabloid fluff designed to keep me enraged.
It took me years to realize that, just like being told I’m wrong about something, cognitive dissonance is the feeling that I’m about to learn something. Now it’s a way to make a connection over education.
While there’s truth in that, I also feel like the way OP phrased it is needlessly, simplistically cynical. For one thing, just because you’re in general agreement with a group doesn’t necessarily make it an “echo chamber.” There can also be groups that do a pretty good job collectively shining critical analysis on the news of the day in order to sort it out properly. That’s a real thing, and we can see it happening all around us.
Not just that, but never before has there been this level of disinformation injected in to Western society, primarily by Russia & China. They’ve become master internet bullshitters, and we’re now on the brink of democracy failing because of how many people buy in to their complete nonsense. Now to me-- that’s an echo chamber.
Not so much the ones who take the time to have real discussions about what the news of the day means. That part is much harder work IMO, it involves lots more uncertainty and even soul-searching, and overall I think Lemmy and the other place do commendable work, there. Bottom line, it feels pretty insulting to hand-wave away large groups like that as mere “echo chambers,” as if they came anywhere close to what’s happening in other places.
Not just that, but never before has there been this level of disinformation injected in to Western society, primarily by Russia & China. They’ve become master internet bullshitters, and we’re now on the brink of democracy failing because of how many people buy in to their complete nonsense. Now to me-- that’s an echo chamber.
While it’s good to see someone else actually acknowledging this as being something that’s actually happening, I wouldn’t call that an echo chamber as so much as it’s a propaganda agenda attack.
So much conflict online right now may not be truly between different members in the same society, but instead conflict that’s whipped up by agitators from outside of the society.
We should all pay more attention to that meta, and act accordingly.
It’s not just a US thing. It’s human nature and tribalism. People will generally stay in spaces where they are validated, other people agree with them, and their beliefs are reinforced.
The concept of the echo chamber was invented by social media companies to gaslight people about how social media algorithms force antagonizing interactions between people who would avoid each other in real life because arguments mean participation means more ad revenue.
In real life constantly trying to hunt down people you disagree with to “expose yourself to the whole debate” isn’t seen as virtuous, it’s seen as grounds for a restraining order, and depending on how intense you were about it, an involuntary psych hold.
It’s not an echo chamber, it’s the fact that how humans naturally build their own social environment outside of social media runs directly opposed to how social media companies maximize their revenue off you.
force antagonizing interactions between people who would avoid each other in real life because arguments mean participation means more ad revenue.
It’s not even that they necessarily would avoid each other in real life, I find. It’s that the channels through which these confrontations take place are totally constructed to promote bad faith snap judgements. It’s why short form content is becoming more popular online, I think. Human expression is sort of pushed through a pasta strainer until it becomes the homogenous goop fuel that both spurns the parasocial gears and powers the skinner’s box roulette wheel at the core of all these services.
One thing that keeps me in my echo chamber is people not coming to debate in good faith. I’m generally all for listening to me ideas and viewpoints, but I find that so many people I talk to just want to convince me I’m wrong.
Before the 2016 election when thedonald was in full swing on Reddit, I thought it would be good to get both sides and entertained it for a while. What I got were the most vitriolic, ignorant, and disingenuous headlines and comments clogging my feed. So ya, I blocked it. If a huge part of a platform is pushing horseshit I don’t feel the least bit bad about blocking it.
I think echo chambers is what the current form of the internet has provided us with. Especially the recommendation algorithms that make it so convenient. And it’s a downwards-spiral in itself.
Also politics in the USA seems to have that baked in. Two parties, strong opinions about everything and you need to take sides. Everything needs to be simple truths and about people, less about complicated topics and diversified perspectives. You’re either supporting something or the enemy.
Also in the present time some people struggle with the choices available to them. Some want guidance, simple truths and something to identify themselves with. It’s a part of being human to look for a way to define your own identity. And to want a group to belong to.
So we end up in a situation where everything is pushing towards it. People longing for recognition and validation, tribalism being part of our psychology. Companies pushing for it with their platforms and algorithms. And politicians recognizing and exploiting it to their advantage.
And I rarely see politicians talk about tackling actual issues… Saying it’ll take some effort but we need to address xyz, it’s the way forward. They rather make it emotional, make a show out of it. Other things would be widely unpopular in the US.
The internet only allows people to form more niche echo chambers. It does as much or more to challenge them though. All of us grew up in echo chambers of one or another. They predate the internet by millennia.
Politics has also been a 2 party thing for Americas entire history. The names change but it’s always two. Modern magats are no different than the rural rubes taken advantage of by wealthy southerners in the civil war.
The reason wealthy powerful politicians don’t address base problems. Is because that’s often them. We replaced one wealthy ruling elite for a slightly less narrow group of wealthy powerful elite. Thinking it would resolve all our problems in the long term. But the problem was never the number of wealthy ruling elites. The problem was the wealthy ruling Elite.
Disagree. YouTube recommends me a lot of videos about science, Linux, nerd stuff, certain kinds of politics… It’s an entirely different feed for my wife with her interests matched. Also my 65 yo relatives read completely different news articles than the ones I read. Same with Instagram, TokTok and Telegram groups they’re a member of. It’s not a slightly more niche thing, it’s a completely different perspective on the world and what’s important.
10 years ago we all used to watch the same 8 'o clock news… It has completely changed.
And it’s on an entire different level than 15 years ago when the choice was like 5 different newspapers with a slightly different political focus. You’re right that echo chambers, tribalism and groups have always existed. But the internet did quite something and brought it to a whole next level. Mass media is close to dead and it’s the recommendation algorithm of the tech companies who shape the perspectives of most of the people. Tailored to their filter bubble.
And with the 2 party system and the politicians not addressing the problems… I agree. I think that’s one of the major problems. And the USA has pioneered being an echo chamber for the “western world”. I’d agree that it happened way earlier and is more pronounced than in other parts of the world. And these aren’t healthy or sustainable dynamics.
I would propose that the echo chamber has just diversified, changed, become maybe more atomized. But it hasn’t really gone away. The other guy is right, the nightly news was a huge echo chamber. America was totally hyped for the Iraq war in a post 9/11 world, if you pulled that shit nowadays, you’d probably see a pretty diversified set of opinions due to the death of the monoculture. Whether or not that’s good or bad, or is dissolving the social fabric and sense of a shared culture, is a different kind of conversation that I’d also have, but the echo chambers themselves, they’ve been around.
Hmm. I can relate more to that. I myself think these are two different (somwehat related) problems. However, with very different consequences…
One large echo chamber (or a handful) isn’t good.
But replacing that with many indivudial echo chambers isn’t good either.
Having a large one will do those mass dynamics. And it won’t lead you towards truth or progress.
Individual echo chambers have the effect that people now can’t find a factual basis to base their conversation on. People won’t be able to handle dissent anymore or talk to other groups / generations. I suppose in the US you have two large groups who can’t agree on anything anymore, dragging everyone down in the process. I think these issues are closely related. And from my perspective it looks like the situation hasn’t been that bad before.
I think it’s two seperate topics. Neither one is a good replacement for the other.
In the end the internet has the capability to connect people. To make lots of diverse information available to everyone. But it can also be used to spread misinformation and feed narrow perspectives to people. I think the internet is a great tool to get us towards enlightenment. The echo chambers and recommendations are two steps back, however.
Yeah, it’s just pretty tough to get people wormed out of those short term benefit incentive structures, and it’s also pretty hard to sort through an excessive overabundance of content. Like half the reason tiktok is so popular is because it doesn’t require that you really do much to interact with the app, it just serves you automatically as long as you scroll and watch content. It’s like a three button operation, basically. It’s pretty hard to get consumers to not act outside of their own immediate instincts when that’s what they’ve been programmed to do.
I also don’t have the answer to that problem. I get that nobody can put in the effort to verify all information they get. Not even curate what they want to see and what to skip. And I get that you sometimes want convenience. But I think sometimes it comes at a high price. I’m really not okay that most of the platforms most of us use on a daily basis are owned and designed by a few large companies. That they exploit short time incentives as you said (and human psychology.) I don’t think that’s healthy or sustainable for the people or society. And it feels to me like we’ve been there. Before the Age of Enlightenment when other people guided us and our access to information. Difference is, back then the monarch forced people. Now it’s not a monarch and they have more elaborate means and people follow willingly.
That’s also why I’m here and not on Reddit or Facebook or TikTok. I’m aware that I can’t escape being subject to my own small world and echo chambers. But at least this way I’m choosing them myself and not being fed that by Meta or Google. And I suppose it’s a bit less confined because the Fediverse was designed with other goals in mind.
I mean I dunno, in some ways I think the fediverse might be worse, right? If I’m on reddit, then I have to intentionally go to r/the Donald or whatever, and manually block the shit from appearing on my page, if that were to happen (it probably won’t unless I seek it out, but yeah). With the drivers, after choosing your instance, you just don’t see, say, posts from hexbear or whatever. NSFW posts, whatever, whatever they decided to defederate with. So it kinda just seems like a continuation of the atomization, a continuation of the fracturing of the information landscape, the continuation of the death of the monoculture.
At the same time, Reddit also sucks. You really don’t need a complicated system to create these perverse incentive structures, anyone who’s used reddit could probably already tell you the relatively obvious set of disadvantages that are incurred by the platform, that lend themselves towards echo chambers. Downvoted posts don’t float to the top, which means they aren’t seen, certain users are given priority based on the historical consistency of their ability to get upvotes, and overall the platform is going to consistently cater towards the lowest combo dominator. Lemmy hasn’t really solved any of those problems with the inherent structure, there, of like a “pure” democratic system online. It’s only really solved, like, selecting for only privacy councious Linux tech bro libs on this instance, and then selecting for revolutionary cosplay commies on the other couple. And then Germans, also, somehow.
Even with that simple of a structure, it doesn’t work. I could spell out similar problems with the way 4chan is structured, and that site is basically just like, first come first serve, as simple as it gets. To solve these problems, you have to introduce more complicated mechanisms, but to introduce more complicated regulatory mechanisms, you introduce probably more obfuscation and probably more centralization of power.
As far as I can tell, without majorly changing the economic structure of our society, and the set of behaviors and incentives that are created as a result of that structure, nothing on the Internet is really going to change. The user behavior is shaped by the environment, usually not the other way around, so much. I dunno, I’m kind of a boomer when it comes to this stuff specifically. It’s nice to be able to not pay 50 bucks to get a manual for my car, though, so that’s not nothing.
An algorithm does nothing to stop your choice. I’d hazard I have very similar viewing habits and YT suggestions. I bust out of it regularly though. Because it just feeds me the same stuff constantly. You can do that any time. It’s like the Jerryboree, you’re always allowed to leave if you want. Implying algorithms are echo chambers. Is like asserting that the jerryborres are like Auschwitz. It’s silly.
The 8 o’clock news was a much bigger echo chamber than YouTube or Instagram ever were. In fact you’ve literally described YouTube shattering a classic Echo chamber in your life and are lamenting it. How ironic. My parents watch a lot of YouTube these days too. Nothing I’d watch. But they watch together because of shared interests. If you want to share more with your wife/family etc. Put some effort into it. Find something you all like, and make a point to watch it together. No algorithm is stopping you.
Don’t get me wrong. Algorithms can absolutely exacerbate and help create Echo chambers. But they aren’t Echo Chambers themselves. You could choose to go on a Prager U watching binge on YouTube tomorrow. And soil your suggestions for months or years to come. You won’t. But you could. The fact that the algorithm is feeding you stuff that it knows you’ll engage with. You know, the sort of thing you’d be doing yourself without the algorithm helping you. Doesn’t make it an echo chamber.
There are two types of echo chambers. Those created from lack of access to information. And those we create for ourselves. Algorithms need not apply.
Hmm, I’m not convinced. Sure it’s not technically preventing me from accessing information. But come on, we all know 90% of people prefer the convenience and won’t click through 5 pages to get to that specific innormation. They’ll just scroll by and fall victim to it. The rest also does, albeit to a lesser degree.
And I’ve been on YouTube when it used to show exactly the subscription feeds… And that time is long gone. I’m subscribed to a few channels that are not “advertiser friendly”. And they almost never show up anywhere. Once a month I maybe remember that I haven’t seen a video in a while and I check out their channel manually and I’ve missed 2 videos… What else am I missing out on? How’s that not filtering and shaping my perspective?
And the 8 o’clock news is kind of my point. That’s an example of mass media. Everyone get’s the same info. People can talk, they have the same info available. That’s the opposite of different echo chambers. It won’t be your uncle who got radicalized into thinking immigrants are the most pressing issues and you being radicalized to think gender equality is the most pressing issue in society. Of course that’s not absolute, people have always had different interests and other sources available, too. And one big echo chamber has never been great either. Back in the day I learnt a lot less about China or other parts of the world than I do today.
I’m not sure if the current situation is good however. I get lots of oppinions about Putin and Israel and Palestine. And still almost zero about Africa or my neighbor countries. That bias is still there. So it also didn’t solve that issue.
I wonder how people believe they’re not part of the scheme. I mean, are you curating your content yourself? Putting in the hours of work each day to get the unbiased perspective? Do you read about all of the countries and different people that are beyond your perspective and interest and factor them in? Do you also read about the local news and the struggles of the youth center nextdoor that is about to get closed? If yes, I’d like to know how you do it, because I’d like to have that available, too. But I’m neither a journalist nor do I have all day to read background articles and write all the news myself… And if not - you’re getting your perspective of the world delivered to you. Shaped by somebody else. If you’re using YouTube’s recommendations or Instagram or TikTok… That’s done by an algorithm. If you’re watching the news or reading a newspaper that’s maybe by some journalists. But all of that is still a filter bubble. And if it’s an algorithm it’s designed to please you and keep you engaged and scrolling. The echo chamber so to say… If it’s a journalist, they’re technically supposed to be neutral. I guess that doesn’t work in the US either, but there are still proper journalists around. It’s not either, or… Both approaches have issues, some of them are different. But the things that are designed to foster individual echo chambers… are the recommendation algorithms.
(And I also wouldn’t like to return to the old times… If that’s not clear from my writing… I think that’s not been great, either.)
The fact that you choose to eat ho-hos and ding dongs does not mean that you live in a food desert. But if you live in a food desert. You might not have anything better than Ho Hos and ding dongs to eat. And if the grocery store determines that they can boost their business by lining the front shelves with Ho Hos and ding dongs. And you come in but never go past those shelves to get to the health foods and produce behind. Is that the grocery stores fault or is it yours? This is all analogous.
We need to decide if we’re talking about how bad a lot of these algorithms are or how bad Echo Chambers are. Believe me I think YouTube’s algorithm sucks as far as seeing what I really want to see. It generally suggests okay things. But I do often have to go digging through my subscriptions to find even recent videos from people that I would rather see. Again that’s not an echo chamber though.
The algorithm is simply putting generally tolerable mass-produced pablum to keep me watching forever in view. Not prioritizing what I really want. But I can still get to what I really want even if I have to walk past those first couple shelves. Honestly, anymore on YouTube I rush past the first few shelves and go directly to my subscription only feed. And look through that and go through and pick out the stuff that I want to watch. Then when I’ve seen everything I really want to watch. I might go to the suggestion feed and pull up something it has there. There’s no one there telling me I can’t or shouldn’t do that or blocking my access.
I don’t think you get what I’m trying to say. You don’t need to block anything to shape someone’s view of the world. Just tell them lies. Feed them one-sided info all day. Make opposing things inconvenient to access. No need to block or restrict anything, it’ll work anyways. Sure, “theoretically” everyone can look it up. Or go to the library and read a book on history. “Theoretically” they could do. But “in theory” is not enough if it never happens.
You’re bound to watch more if the stuff that’s easily available to you. And less of the stuff that’s unconvenient. Thus shaping the knowledge that gets accumulated in your brain.
And you seem to be under the impression that they’re deliberately trying to influence your views. That’s not the case. They just want you to keep watching. They don’t mind if you consume leftist or alt-right content. But to achieve that, they’re trying to recommend something to you you might like to watch. If you’ve watched Jordan Peterson all day, you’ll get more of that because obviously you like it. Hence confining you more into your individual echo chamber. And that’s not because they like Jordan Peterson… They just want to sell ads. And that’s the way to do it.
And it’s yet more perfiduous: If you want to exploit human psychology as a platform provider, you occasionaly also show your users content they don’t like… That gives them the false impression that it’s not just a small bubble. The illusion of choice. And it’ll get you more… It’s something that your users can get angry about or pick on. It’ll raise emotions, get them even more engaged. And it’ll be yet more profitable. And as it turns out it’s a known fact that the big tech companies hire psychologists. And some more shady companies have been proven to make their products addictive by such means.
Again: They don’t exactly want to impress any specific political view on you. It’s just how they make more money. And the rest is an unintended side-effect. But it has these consequences, regardless.
That friend. Is framing. Not an echo chamber. Framing can amplify Echo Chambers absolutely. But it’s not the same thing. It is something we all do to an extent and should be aware of. We all frame things in terms of what we know, or even how we wish they would be.
Most things in life especially in America have a heavy right-wing fash friendly framing. That’s not arguable. Just a fact of the last 100 years. Which is why when most people realistically only had the 8:00 news it was such an Insidious and effective Echo chamber. They constantly echoed the same talking points. With the same fash friendly framing. We were the heroes delivering freedom against the godless communists etc. Was that ever really true? You might be able to make a specious argument or two. But it’s not factual on the face of it. Note this is not a defense of ML/Stalinism/Maoism or tankies. They’re as big a problem as capitalists realistically.
Florida, arguably an echo chamber by many metrics. They’re trying to restricted peoples access to information and violate their first amendment rights. Twitter, absolutely an echo chamber. They’re banning lefties at the drop of a hat temp/perm/shadow. Replatforming deservedly permabanned rightwing ghouls. With an egoist in a khole paying and promoting hate speech. YouTube, their algorithm sucks. But as much as I dislike that they allow propaganda etc like daily wire etc. They also allow propaganda like second thought which I also dislike. They certainly aren’t perfect. But not the same thing.
I’ve always been fascinated by the idea that Americans define themselves by their politics. Where I’m from people will usually say, “I voted for X” but in the US it seems people say, “I am a republican/democrat”.
Also the concept of registering as a democrat/republican. Is that just for being able to vote for your preferred party’s nominee in the pre-selection phase? It seems like it would go a long way towards mentally committing you to how you vote in the actual election.
Regarding party selection, yes that’s exactly right. It’s for the primaries, which selects the candidates for that party, and people do tend to vote along party lines.
I think people expressing opinions to othet that they don’t agree with makes people uncomfortable. People tend to avoid feeling uncomfortable. Also some people get angry when they get uncomfortable.
Its hard to have an meaningful conversation with someone who is angry.
Because self-reflection is hard and most people have been taught that it’s equivalent to “hating yourself, your country, etc…”
Taking an honest look at your own faults is inordinately hard for most people, so they would rather double down on their own wrongness, regardless of evidence.
Splintered media environment means we don’t actually have a shared set of facts to discuss with people from the other side anymore. We can’t have normal conversations when we can’t agree on the basic facts on the ground.
For a rather unsettling take, you may be interested in the concept of the digital panopticon. Because of the degree of surveillance that is possible in what media we consume, it’s also possible that we are intentionally being kept in these echo chambers.
People prefer less social strife in general. They may think they like “owning” some opponent, but what they really want is a bunch of people that agree with them so they can feel safe and calm. That’s what it comes down to, that feeling of safety.
Engaging in conflict is only fun when the base you’re standing on, and returning to, is solid and supportive.
That is completely faction agnostic, it applies outside of politics as well.
Since the world as it is often is controlled by people leveraging fear and doubt to wield control, it pushes people into feeling besieged which makes them seek “safety” in numbers by connecting with those they think of as allies more than they might if not exposed to the manipulation used by political (or other) blocs and the people that control those blocs.
not american.
but echo chambers are cool in a way that goes beyond politics. it provides perceptible feelings of unity, belongingness, and validity to those that seek them. apes together strong kind of deal.
and since politics is about social issues, I don’t see why not.
Going to build on this to highlight something:
Given the hyper-stigmatized, hyper-partisan approach to… well, a lot of things these days, not just US politics, engaging with those you politically disagree with is likely to not just produce calm disagreements but sharp, even vicious statements that your entire worldview/lifestyle/culture/ethnicity/whatever is literally the stuff of pure evil, and you are an absolutely terrible person for adhering to it. No nuance, no consideration, no empathy.
On a different tack, consider that strong rejection/disagreement is shown to activate the same centers in your brain which are associated with sharp physical pain. To your brain, being slapped in the face conversationally and slapped in the face physically produce extremely similar results.
With these two points in mind, consider: Why would people choose to expose themselves to environments which promote something their brain interprets as actual, physical harm?
Unfortunately, the current palette of social media options don’t really offer spaces for nuanced, thoughtful discussion which doesn’t begin with people screaming their hostility to what they disagree with. It’s a big of a chicken-and-egg question whether that’s a cause or an effect, but the net result is creation of an environment which our pain-avoiding brains guide our choices away from people we disagree with.
People commonly have a framework where they think of the slap as having kind of, occurred beforehand, right, and then they see themselves as slapping back whenever they respond, which is another part of why political discourse is so polarized and bad faith basically at all times.
That’s a fair point too; if you go in anticipating a conversational slap, you’re in a defensive posture from the start.
This reinforces my feeling that setting out to specifically create that no-slapping environment from the start is critical, but it also adds in another twist and problem: There’s increasing evidence that political “language” between various groups is diverging. In other words, ~20 years ago people used the same words to mean the same things, even when they disagreed. Now people on different sides of an issue use identical words to mean totally different things - including some that can be perceived as a verbal slap.
I’ve been tooting that horn for a while, but it’s a pretty hard point to translate into real political discourse with people. I try to weasel out of it, but at some point, people get really fed up and want you to “state your actual opinions”, or otherwise will just bully you relentlessly. Basically, I’m just saying that with any change of opinion, there’s going to be, probably, some necessary amount of discomfort. I guess my extrapolation from that would probably be that it’s a better policy as a whole if people just stop taking the slap so personally or so passionately. Better policy if your face goes numb, easier to work with, rather than handcuffing everyone, ja feel?
I dunno but there’s also definitely an amount by which that political polarization is strictly due to social media algorithms keeping people in bubbles where they’re constantly drip fed their own personalized optimal ratio of ragebait to wholesome garbage. It’s kind of inevitable that anyone starts to lose it, if they’ve been confined to their schizo microculture for long enough.
Yeah, I feel you. On both points.
One whole “echo chamber” was built on stigmatizing the mainstream news which by definition means they’re pushing alternative news.
The only news I’m interested in are the facts. I avoid opinion articles or “framing” as much as I can.
If we’re calling factual reporting an echo chamber then fine. I guess the answer to your question for me is I like my echo chamber because the truth matters.
The “echo chamber” narrative only serves to legitimize and “both sides” bullshit.
Yep sometimes the widely accepted, popular view is the correct one.
Because the opposite echo chamber is filled with lying liars who lie? ;)
You can’t take someone from an echo chamber, present them with facts, and change their mind. In fact, the opposite is true. They double down on what they think they already know.
https://today.uconn.edu/2022/08/cognitive-biases-and-brain-biology-help-explain-why-facts-dont-change-minds-2/#
It feels like politics in America is a game of team sports. Red vs Blue. No compromising, you either win or lose.
Pretty much, except that the Democrats ALWAYS compromise, resulting in a slow creep to the right over the last 50 years.
I’ll tell you why I’m pretty liberal with my block button and cool with my echo chamber. There are people out there who want me dead for liking my same sex. My trans friends are being legislated against / threatened with violence not because of science or health, but because of feelings and religion. I have family that emigrated legally being exposed to horrific racism and the threat of violence.
Do you support human rights? Or do you support death to the “other” ? Makes my choices easy. Not to mention I prefer actual truth to my information sources, not tabloid fluff designed to keep me enraged.
Human nature; people do not want to admit when they’re wrong, so they seek media that does not challenge their beliefs.
Cognitive Dissonance is real and is powerful.
It took me years to realize that, just like being told I’m wrong about something, cognitive dissonance is the feeling that I’m about to learn something. Now it’s a way to make a connection over education.
While there’s truth in that, I also feel like the way OP phrased it is needlessly, simplistically cynical. For one thing, just because you’re in general agreement with a group doesn’t necessarily make it an “echo chamber.” There can also be groups that do a pretty good job collectively shining critical analysis on the news of the day in order to sort it out properly. That’s a real thing, and we can see it happening all around us.
Not just that, but never before has there been this level of disinformation injected in to Western society, primarily by Russia & China. They’ve become master internet bullshitters, and we’re now on the brink of democracy failing because of how many people buy in to their complete nonsense. Now to me-- that’s an echo chamber.
Not so much the ones who take the time to have real discussions about what the news of the day means. That part is much harder work IMO, it involves lots more uncertainty and even soul-searching, and overall I think Lemmy and the other place do commendable work, there. Bottom line, it feels pretty insulting to hand-wave away large groups like that as mere “echo chambers,” as if they came anywhere close to what’s happening in other places.
While it’s good to see someone else actually acknowledging this as being something that’s actually happening, I wouldn’t call that an echo chamber as so much as it’s a propaganda agenda attack.
So much conflict online right now may not be truly between different members in the same society, but instead conflict that’s whipped up by agitators from outside of the society.
We should all pay more attention to that meta, and act accordingly.
It’s not just a US thing. It’s human nature and tribalism. People will generally stay in spaces where they are validated, other people agree with them, and their beliefs are reinforced.
The concept of the echo chamber was invented by social media companies to gaslight people about how social media algorithms force antagonizing interactions between people who would avoid each other in real life because arguments mean participation means more ad revenue.
In real life constantly trying to hunt down people you disagree with to “expose yourself to the whole debate” isn’t seen as virtuous, it’s seen as grounds for a restraining order, and depending on how intense you were about it, an involuntary psych hold.
It’s not an echo chamber, it’s the fact that how humans naturally build their own social environment outside of social media runs directly opposed to how social media companies maximize their revenue off you.
It’s not even that they necessarily would avoid each other in real life, I find. It’s that the channels through which these confrontations take place are totally constructed to promote bad faith snap judgements. It’s why short form content is becoming more popular online, I think. Human expression is sort of pushed through a pasta strainer until it becomes the homogenous goop fuel that both spurns the parasocial gears and powers the skinner’s box roulette wheel at the core of all these services.
One thing that keeps me in my echo chamber is people not coming to debate in good faith. I’m generally all for listening to me ideas and viewpoints, but I find that so many people I talk to just want to convince me I’m wrong.
Before the 2016 election when thedonald was in full swing on Reddit, I thought it would be good to get both sides and entertained it for a while. What I got were the most vitriolic, ignorant, and disingenuous headlines and comments clogging my feed. So ya, I blocked it. If a huge part of a platform is pushing horseshit I don’t feel the least bit bad about blocking it.
A lot of people think that, yet still debate in bad faith when provided with evidence etc.
I think echo chambers is what the current form of the internet has provided us with. Especially the recommendation algorithms that make it so convenient. And it’s a downwards-spiral in itself.
Also politics in the USA seems to have that baked in. Two parties, strong opinions about everything and you need to take sides. Everything needs to be simple truths and about people, less about complicated topics and diversified perspectives. You’re either supporting something or the enemy.
Also in the present time some people struggle with the choices available to them. Some want guidance, simple truths and something to identify themselves with. It’s a part of being human to look for a way to define your own identity. And to want a group to belong to.
So we end up in a situation where everything is pushing towards it. People longing for recognition and validation, tribalism being part of our psychology. Companies pushing for it with their platforms and algorithms. And politicians recognizing and exploiting it to their advantage.
And I rarely see politicians talk about tackling actual issues… Saying it’ll take some effort but we need to address xyz, it’s the way forward. They rather make it emotional, make a show out of it. Other things would be widely unpopular in the US.
The internet only allows people to form more niche echo chambers. It does as much or more to challenge them though. All of us grew up in echo chambers of one or another. They predate the internet by millennia.
Politics has also been a 2 party thing for Americas entire history. The names change but it’s always two. Modern magats are no different than the rural rubes taken advantage of by wealthy southerners in the civil war.
The reason wealthy powerful politicians don’t address base problems. Is because that’s often them. We replaced one wealthy ruling elite for a slightly less narrow group of wealthy powerful elite. Thinking it would resolve all our problems in the long term. But the problem was never the number of wealthy ruling elites. The problem was the wealthy ruling Elite.
Disagree. YouTube recommends me a lot of videos about science, Linux, nerd stuff, certain kinds of politics… It’s an entirely different feed for my wife with her interests matched. Also my 65 yo relatives read completely different news articles than the ones I read. Same with Instagram, TokTok and Telegram groups they’re a member of. It’s not a slightly more niche thing, it’s a completely different perspective on the world and what’s important.
10 years ago we all used to watch the same 8 'o clock news… It has completely changed.
And it’s on an entire different level than 15 years ago when the choice was like 5 different newspapers with a slightly different political focus. You’re right that echo chambers, tribalism and groups have always existed. But the internet did quite something and brought it to a whole next level. Mass media is close to dead and it’s the recommendation algorithm of the tech companies who shape the perspectives of most of the people. Tailored to their filter bubble.
And with the 2 party system and the politicians not addressing the problems… I agree. I think that’s one of the major problems. And the USA has pioneered being an echo chamber for the “western world”. I’d agree that it happened way earlier and is more pronounced than in other parts of the world. And these aren’t healthy or sustainable dynamics.
I would propose that the echo chamber has just diversified, changed, become maybe more atomized. But it hasn’t really gone away. The other guy is right, the nightly news was a huge echo chamber. America was totally hyped for the Iraq war in a post 9/11 world, if you pulled that shit nowadays, you’d probably see a pretty diversified set of opinions due to the death of the monoculture. Whether or not that’s good or bad, or is dissolving the social fabric and sense of a shared culture, is a different kind of conversation that I’d also have, but the echo chambers themselves, they’ve been around.
Hmm. I can relate more to that. I myself think these are two different (somwehat related) problems. However, with very different consequences…
One large echo chamber (or a handful) isn’t good.
But replacing that with many indivudial echo chambers isn’t good either.
Having a large one will do those mass dynamics. And it won’t lead you towards truth or progress.
Individual echo chambers have the effect that people now can’t find a factual basis to base their conversation on. People won’t be able to handle dissent anymore or talk to other groups / generations. I suppose in the US you have two large groups who can’t agree on anything anymore, dragging everyone down in the process. I think these issues are closely related. And from my perspective it looks like the situation hasn’t been that bad before.
I think it’s two seperate topics. Neither one is a good replacement for the other.
In the end the internet has the capability to connect people. To make lots of diverse information available to everyone. But it can also be used to spread misinformation and feed narrow perspectives to people. I think the internet is a great tool to get us towards enlightenment. The echo chambers and recommendations are two steps back, however.
Yeah, it’s just pretty tough to get people wormed out of those short term benefit incentive structures, and it’s also pretty hard to sort through an excessive overabundance of content. Like half the reason tiktok is so popular is because it doesn’t require that you really do much to interact with the app, it just serves you automatically as long as you scroll and watch content. It’s like a three button operation, basically. It’s pretty hard to get consumers to not act outside of their own immediate instincts when that’s what they’ve been programmed to do.
I also don’t have the answer to that problem. I get that nobody can put in the effort to verify all information they get. Not even curate what they want to see and what to skip. And I get that you sometimes want convenience. But I think sometimes it comes at a high price. I’m really not okay that most of the platforms most of us use on a daily basis are owned and designed by a few large companies. That they exploit short time incentives as you said (and human psychology.) I don’t think that’s healthy or sustainable for the people or society. And it feels to me like we’ve been there. Before the Age of Enlightenment when other people guided us and our access to information. Difference is, back then the monarch forced people. Now it’s not a monarch and they have more elaborate means and people follow willingly.
That’s also why I’m here and not on Reddit or Facebook or TikTok. I’m aware that I can’t escape being subject to my own small world and echo chambers. But at least this way I’m choosing them myself and not being fed that by Meta or Google. And I suppose it’s a bit less confined because the Fediverse was designed with other goals in mind.
I mean I dunno, in some ways I think the fediverse might be worse, right? If I’m on reddit, then I have to intentionally go to r/the Donald or whatever, and manually block the shit from appearing on my page, if that were to happen (it probably won’t unless I seek it out, but yeah). With the drivers, after choosing your instance, you just don’t see, say, posts from hexbear or whatever. NSFW posts, whatever, whatever they decided to defederate with. So it kinda just seems like a continuation of the atomization, a continuation of the fracturing of the information landscape, the continuation of the death of the monoculture.
At the same time, Reddit also sucks. You really don’t need a complicated system to create these perverse incentive structures, anyone who’s used reddit could probably already tell you the relatively obvious set of disadvantages that are incurred by the platform, that lend themselves towards echo chambers. Downvoted posts don’t float to the top, which means they aren’t seen, certain users are given priority based on the historical consistency of their ability to get upvotes, and overall the platform is going to consistently cater towards the lowest combo dominator. Lemmy hasn’t really solved any of those problems with the inherent structure, there, of like a “pure” democratic system online. It’s only really solved, like, selecting for only privacy councious Linux tech bro libs on this instance, and then selecting for revolutionary cosplay commies on the other couple. And then Germans, also, somehow.
Even with that simple of a structure, it doesn’t work. I could spell out similar problems with the way 4chan is structured, and that site is basically just like, first come first serve, as simple as it gets. To solve these problems, you have to introduce more complicated mechanisms, but to introduce more complicated regulatory mechanisms, you introduce probably more obfuscation and probably more centralization of power.
As far as I can tell, without majorly changing the economic structure of our society, and the set of behaviors and incentives that are created as a result of that structure, nothing on the Internet is really going to change. The user behavior is shaped by the environment, usually not the other way around, so much. I dunno, I’m kind of a boomer when it comes to this stuff specifically. It’s nice to be able to not pay 50 bucks to get a manual for my car, though, so that’s not nothing.
An algorithm does nothing to stop your choice. I’d hazard I have very similar viewing habits and YT suggestions. I bust out of it regularly though. Because it just feeds me the same stuff constantly. You can do that any time. It’s like the Jerryboree, you’re always allowed to leave if you want. Implying algorithms are echo chambers. Is like asserting that the jerryborres are like Auschwitz. It’s silly.
The 8 o’clock news was a much bigger echo chamber than YouTube or Instagram ever were. In fact you’ve literally described YouTube shattering a classic Echo chamber in your life and are lamenting it. How ironic. My parents watch a lot of YouTube these days too. Nothing I’d watch. But they watch together because of shared interests. If you want to share more with your wife/family etc. Put some effort into it. Find something you all like, and make a point to watch it together. No algorithm is stopping you.
Don’t get me wrong. Algorithms can absolutely exacerbate and help create Echo chambers. But they aren’t Echo Chambers themselves. You could choose to go on a Prager U watching binge on YouTube tomorrow. And soil your suggestions for months or years to come. You won’t. But you could. The fact that the algorithm is feeding you stuff that it knows you’ll engage with. You know, the sort of thing you’d be doing yourself without the algorithm helping you. Doesn’t make it an echo chamber.
There are two types of echo chambers. Those created from lack of access to information. And those we create for ourselves. Algorithms need not apply.
Hmm, I’m not convinced. Sure it’s not technically preventing me from accessing information. But come on, we all know 90% of people prefer the convenience and won’t click through 5 pages to get to that specific innormation. They’ll just scroll by and fall victim to it. The rest also does, albeit to a lesser degree.
And I’ve been on YouTube when it used to show exactly the subscription feeds… And that time is long gone. I’m subscribed to a few channels that are not “advertiser friendly”. And they almost never show up anywhere. Once a month I maybe remember that I haven’t seen a video in a while and I check out their channel manually and I’ve missed 2 videos… What else am I missing out on? How’s that not filtering and shaping my perspective?
And the 8 o’clock news is kind of my point. That’s an example of mass media. Everyone get’s the same info. People can talk, they have the same info available. That’s the opposite of different echo chambers. It won’t be your uncle who got radicalized into thinking immigrants are the most pressing issues and you being radicalized to think gender equality is the most pressing issue in society. Of course that’s not absolute, people have always had different interests and other sources available, too. And one big echo chamber has never been great either. Back in the day I learnt a lot less about China or other parts of the world than I do today.
I’m not sure if the current situation is good however. I get lots of oppinions about Putin and Israel and Palestine. And still almost zero about Africa or my neighbor countries. That bias is still there. So it also didn’t solve that issue.
I wonder how people believe they’re not part of the scheme. I mean, are you curating your content yourself? Putting in the hours of work each day to get the unbiased perspective? Do you read about all of the countries and different people that are beyond your perspective and interest and factor them in? Do you also read about the local news and the struggles of the youth center nextdoor that is about to get closed? If yes, I’d like to know how you do it, because I’d like to have that available, too. But I’m neither a journalist nor do I have all day to read background articles and write all the news myself… And if not - you’re getting your perspective of the world delivered to you. Shaped by somebody else. If you’re using YouTube’s recommendations or Instagram or TikTok… That’s done by an algorithm. If you’re watching the news or reading a newspaper that’s maybe by some journalists. But all of that is still a filter bubble. And if it’s an algorithm it’s designed to please you and keep you engaged and scrolling. The echo chamber so to say… If it’s a journalist, they’re technically supposed to be neutral. I guess that doesn’t work in the US either, but there are still proper journalists around. It’s not either, or… Both approaches have issues, some of them are different. But the things that are designed to foster individual echo chambers… are the recommendation algorithms.
(And I also wouldn’t like to return to the old times… If that’s not clear from my writing… I think that’s not been great, either.)
The fact that you choose to eat ho-hos and ding dongs does not mean that you live in a food desert. But if you live in a food desert. You might not have anything better than Ho Hos and ding dongs to eat. And if the grocery store determines that they can boost their business by lining the front shelves with Ho Hos and ding dongs. And you come in but never go past those shelves to get to the health foods and produce behind. Is that the grocery stores fault or is it yours? This is all analogous.
We need to decide if we’re talking about how bad a lot of these algorithms are or how bad Echo Chambers are. Believe me I think YouTube’s algorithm sucks as far as seeing what I really want to see. It generally suggests okay things. But I do often have to go digging through my subscriptions to find even recent videos from people that I would rather see. Again that’s not an echo chamber though.
The algorithm is simply putting generally tolerable mass-produced pablum to keep me watching forever in view. Not prioritizing what I really want. But I can still get to what I really want even if I have to walk past those first couple shelves. Honestly, anymore on YouTube I rush past the first few shelves and go directly to my subscription only feed. And look through that and go through and pick out the stuff that I want to watch. Then when I’ve seen everything I really want to watch. I might go to the suggestion feed and pull up something it has there. There’s no one there telling me I can’t or shouldn’t do that or blocking my access.
I don’t think you get what I’m trying to say. You don’t need to block anything to shape someone’s view of the world. Just tell them lies. Feed them one-sided info all day. Make opposing things inconvenient to access. No need to block or restrict anything, it’ll work anyways. Sure, “theoretically” everyone can look it up. Or go to the library and read a book on history. “Theoretically” they could do. But “in theory” is not enough if it never happens.
You’re bound to watch more if the stuff that’s easily available to you. And less of the stuff that’s unconvenient. Thus shaping the knowledge that gets accumulated in your brain.
And you seem to be under the impression that they’re deliberately trying to influence your views. That’s not the case. They just want you to keep watching. They don’t mind if you consume leftist or alt-right content. But to achieve that, they’re trying to recommend something to you you might like to watch. If you’ve watched Jordan Peterson all day, you’ll get more of that because obviously you like it. Hence confining you more into your individual echo chamber. And that’s not because they like Jordan Peterson… They just want to sell ads. And that’s the way to do it.
And it’s yet more perfiduous: If you want to exploit human psychology as a platform provider, you occasionaly also show your users content they don’t like… That gives them the false impression that it’s not just a small bubble. The illusion of choice. And it’ll get you more… It’s something that your users can get angry about or pick on. It’ll raise emotions, get them even more engaged. And it’ll be yet more profitable. And as it turns out it’s a known fact that the big tech companies hire psychologists. And some more shady companies have been proven to make their products addictive by such means.
Again: They don’t exactly want to impress any specific political view on you. It’s just how they make more money. And the rest is an unintended side-effect. But it has these consequences, regardless.
That friend. Is framing. Not an echo chamber. Framing can amplify Echo Chambers absolutely. But it’s not the same thing. It is something we all do to an extent and should be aware of. We all frame things in terms of what we know, or even how we wish they would be.
Most things in life especially in America have a heavy right-wing fash friendly framing. That’s not arguable. Just a fact of the last 100 years. Which is why when most people realistically only had the 8:00 news it was such an Insidious and effective Echo chamber. They constantly echoed the same talking points. With the same fash friendly framing. We were the heroes delivering freedom against the godless communists etc. Was that ever really true? You might be able to make a specious argument or two. But it’s not factual on the face of it. Note this is not a defense of ML/Stalinism/Maoism or tankies. They’re as big a problem as capitalists realistically.
Florida, arguably an echo chamber by many metrics. They’re trying to restricted peoples access to information and violate their first amendment rights. Twitter, absolutely an echo chamber. They’re banning lefties at the drop of a hat temp/perm/shadow. Replatforming deservedly permabanned rightwing ghouls. With an egoist in a khole paying and promoting hate speech. YouTube, their algorithm sucks. But as much as I dislike that they allow propaganda etc like daily wire etc. They also allow propaganda like second thought which I also dislike. They certainly aren’t perfect. But not the same thing.
I’ve always been fascinated by the idea that Americans define themselves by their politics. Where I’m from people will usually say, “I voted for X” but in the US it seems people say, “I am a republican/democrat”.
Also the concept of registering as a democrat/republican. Is that just for being able to vote for your preferred party’s nominee in the pre-selection phase? It seems like it would go a long way towards mentally committing you to how you vote in the actual election.
Regarding party selection, yes that’s exactly right. It’s for the primaries, which selects the candidates for that party, and people do tend to vote along party lines.
I think people expressing opinions to othet that they don’t agree with makes people uncomfortable. People tend to avoid feeling uncomfortable. Also some people get angry when they get uncomfortable.
Its hard to have an meaningful conversation with someone who is angry.
Because self-reflection is hard and most people have been taught that it’s equivalent to “hating yourself, your country, etc…” Taking an honest look at your own faults is inordinately hard for most people, so they would rather double down on their own wrongness, regardless of evidence.
Splintered media environment means we don’t actually have a shared set of facts to discuss with people from the other side anymore. We can’t have normal conversations when we can’t agree on the basic facts on the ground.
For a rather unsettling take, you may be interested in the concept of the digital panopticon. Because of the degree of surveillance that is possible in what media we consume, it’s also possible that we are intentionally being kept in these echo chambers.
People prefer less social strife in general. They may think they like “owning” some opponent, but what they really want is a bunch of people that agree with them so they can feel safe and calm. That’s what it comes down to, that feeling of safety.
Engaging in conflict is only fun when the base you’re standing on, and returning to, is solid and supportive.
That is completely faction agnostic, it applies outside of politics as well.
Since the world as it is often is controlled by people leveraging fear and doubt to wield control, it pushes people into feeling besieged which makes them seek “safety” in numbers by connecting with those they think of as allies more than they might if not exposed to the manipulation used by political (or other) blocs and the people that control those blocs.