Echo chambers are on par with human nature: we fear the unknown and flock to like-minded people. It takes a degree of discomfort to read something you don't agree with (explained rationally and with civility) and trying to argument in kind - it's easier to down-vote and here we are...
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
42 points (78.4% liked)
Technology
59764 readers
3184 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think having a marketplace full of alternatives helps prevent that kind of entrenchment somewhat. Here is my problem though, who decides what an echo chamber is? I like a good back and forth conversation, but hate bad faith arguments. If people talk stupid shit, how much tolerance should one reasonably expect?
The problem isn't different opinions, or even radical ones, it's these opinions garnering more clicks and views, incentivizing them as a result.
The reddit model works well for discussions but the mod fiasco ruins everything.
I don't know how it could get any worse than now. Basically we're all in echo chambers whichever platform you use. Including Lemmy.
Agreement with "consensus" of whatever bucket you're placed into is rewarded, and disagreement is punished. Even if only by upvote/downvote. Switching platforms won't change much.
Nearly all social media is full of ~~eco~~ echo chambers.. I still post and follow stuff on several of the platforms. There is very little nuanced conversation.. Seems like it is more and more just an up vote or downvote storm, or people claiming one thing or another without any supporting evidence.
Happy to see the word “nuance” being used… wish there was more of that too. This whole binary with-me / against-me mentality will bring us all crashing down.
And that makes me genuinely sad. When I joined Lemmy, I was a little put off by the leftist bent here, but then I realized that I appreciated being challenged on my views, especially since people here are generally nice about it.
I wish I could find something like that for conservatives as well. Better yet, I wish there was a place like Reddit or Lemmy where all views were respected, provided claims are supported with evidence. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be compatible with the world we live in, and that makes me sad.
Being a Reich Winger is incompatible with rational or thoughtful discussion.
Reich wing ideology boils down to subservience and deference to authority, not knowledge.
You seem to have a very specific definition in mind. There's a lot more to the right wing than fascism.
Reich Wing ideology, the entire thing, relies on subservience and deference to authority. The difference in the various flavors of it are just how much and who.
OK, so you're just going to spout partisan talking points instead of having a productive conversation.
Have a wonderful day.
Of course, discussing political ideology is "partisan"... Its exactly what we're talking about.
And no, they're not just talking points, it's literally how we describe the various systems of political ideology... Reich Wingers look to construct a society around control and subservience. And, like I said, the question of "who" to obey, and how strictly people are to be controlled are what differentiates the various Reich Wing ideologies.
Reich Wingers look to construct a society around control and subservience.
This is a talking point, and you're basically implying everyone on the right believes this, and that's patently false.
That is literally what makes up right wing ideology... Prove me wrong. Because, yes, every Reich Winger thinks that some level of control over others is a requirement of society.
Control of women's bodies.
Control of immigrants.
Control of health care.
Control of religious views.
Control of other countries.
Show me a Reich Winger who doesn't believe that someone needs to control others, and I'll walk that back.
First of all, I want to point out that I'm not registered Republican and haven't voted for a Republican for any executive position for nearly two decades (last time was McCain, though I would've voted for Romney had I voted in 2012). Also, I have voted Republican for other positions very rarely in the last decade or so. In 2020, I voted for Biden because I thought Trump legitimately had a chance of losing my state (still carried it by ~20%), and I voted mostly Democrats for legislative seats this time around because I'm pissed at the gerrymandering my state did recently.
With that out of the way:
Control of women’s bodies.
Not universal, and something like 36% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Control of immigrants.
Something like 15% believe immigration should increase, and 37% believe it should stay the same. Believing immigration should decrease is a minority opinion among Republicans.
Control of health care.
Not sure what you mean by that, Democrats also want to control health care, that's why the ACA exists (they want everyone enrolled in health insurance, which gives the government more control over health care).
If you can be more precise, I can look up some statistics.
Control of religious views.
About 41% of Republicans believe religious Republicans have too much control over the GOP, and about 27% of Republicans are unaffiliated with any particular religion, 13% are atheist, and 34% say "nothing in particular" (I guess that means areligious).
Control of other countries.
Trumpism is isolationist, which is the opposite of wanting to interfere w/ other countries. There are a lot of anti-Trump Republicans (in 2019, though they're probably not going to be as vocal this term.
So if you're looking for anti-interference Republicans, look no further than Trump. There are also plenty of anti-interventionist Republicans in the anti-Trump crowd as well.
So yeah, there's a bunch of stats for you. I'm also guessing we'll see those numbers go up quite a bit after Trump's term is up, because a lot of those answers are likely colored by recent rhetoric.
I could list specific politicians if that's what you're looking for, but I find that much less interesting than statistics.
Not universal, and something like 36% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
But all of them voted to ban abortion, so they can sod off with "Well, it's not what I believe"...
Something like 15% believe immigration should increase, and 37% believe it should stay the same. Believing immigration should decrease is a minority opinion among Republicans.
And yet, they voted to eliminate all non-white immigration. So, again, they can sod off.
Not sure what you mean by that, Democrats also want to control health care, that’s why the ACA exists (they want everyone enrolled in health insurance, which gives the government more control over health care).
The ACA regulated health insurance, not health care. Reich Wingers want health care choices controlled, while de-regulating corporations.
If you can be more precise, I can look up some statistics.
Look up the percentage that voted for Trump, and that's your percentage of people who are Reich Wingers and want to have the state tell humans what health care they can get like:
- Hormone therapy
- Mental healthy care
- Reproductive health care
About 41% of Republicans believe religious Republicans have too much control over the GOP, and about 27% of Republicans are unaffiliated with any particular religion, 13% are atheist, and 34% say “nothing in particular” (I guess that means areligious).
What percentage of them voted for Trump?
Because that percentage voted for a Christofascist system of government.
Trumpism is isolationist, which is the opposite of wanting to interfere w/ other countries. There are a lot of anti-Trump Republicans (in 2019, though they’re probably not going to be as vocal this term.
Trump is an isolationist. Unless it's:
- Israel
- Russia
- North Korea
- Anywhere in the middle east with brown people living there
- A place that has oil, or real estate he can profit from
So if you’re looking for anti-interference Republicans, look no further than Trump. There are also plenty of anti-interventionist Republicans in the anti-Trump crowd as well.
Sure... "Anti-interference", unless it's a friend of his like Putin, or Assad, etc etc.
So yeah, there’s a bunch of stats for you. I’m also guessing we’ll see those numbers go up quite a bit after Trump’s term is up, because a lot of those answers are likely colored by recent rhetoric.
Those stats are meaningless. The only stat that matters is who they voted for.
I could list specific politicians if that’s what you’re looking for, but I find that much less interesting than statistics.
Sure, find me a Reich Winger who isn't what I described. I'm sure they will be a lot like "Trump is really anti-interference!"
all of them voted to ban abortion
No, they voted for someone who voted for something that ended up banning abortion. There are a few steps between most people and actual policy.
they voted to eliminate all non-white immigration
Citation needed.
The ACA regulated health insurance, not health care.
And the health insurance that abides by ACA guidelines determines what forms of health care are covered.
Look up the percentage that voted for Trump
People voted for all sorts of reasons, from the letter next to his name (probably the majority) to BS ads on TV (probably a surprisingly high number) to actually thinking he'll fix inflation (even though that's already fixed by the fed).
Very few people who voted for Trump agree with his entire agenda, and many actively dislike him (source: my entire family, neighbors, etc). You can't really tell someone's policy beliefs based on who they voted for, you can only tell a general direction they'd prefer the country to go, and it seems lower taxes won this round.
Trump is an isolationist. Unless it’
- Israel
- Russia
- North Korea
- Anywhere in the middle east with brown people living there
- A place that has oil, or real estate he can profit from
And how does that compare to Biden or Harris? Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine, Biden/Harris want to extend it and keep sending weapons over. Trump seems to want to end the war in Gaza, whereas Biden seems happy to keep selling weapons to Netanyahu. Biden has bombed his fair share of people in the middle east.
Trump is absolutely terrible, especially on foreign policy, but Biden has been awful as well. That said, I do support helping out Ukraine since it's a defensive war (though I disagree w/ Biden's authorization to use certain classes of missiles in Russia, since those require direct US involvement; at that point, we should just join the war).
The only stat that matters is who they voted for.
I completely disagree.
Sure, find me a Reich Winger who isn’t what I described
Here's an article with a bunch of anti-Trump Republicans still in office. And that's only explicitly confirmed ones, I'm sure there are plenty more who haven't openly opposed Trump, but do intend on opposing some or all of Trump's positions on those issues you listed.
You can probably post on 7.62x54r.ru. Reddit had a decent number of anti-establishment leftists who would join up with conservatives on shared issues. I haven't seen any spaces like that on Lemmy.
Yeah, and that's something I missed about Reddit. I found a few good communities of centrists, open minded leftists, and open minded conservatives, so I could generally join a pretty good discussion. I still needed to watch what I said, because there were some things even open minded people wouldn't consider given their political bias, but a lot of things were fair game.
For example, I could bring up Right to Repair to both groups, and I'd get different reasons for and against it from each group.
Here on Lemmy, I don't get that diversity, either something is compatible with the group's general leftist persuasion, or I get downvoted into oblivion. And that sucks, because I put in a lot of effort to be constructive and challenge the status quo. Fortunately, I usually know before making a statement which way it'll go, and there are no downsides (aside from worse engagement) to getting down votes, so I know what to expect. It does make me sad though.
I'll check out that community though. Not sure what to expect from a .ru domain though as an American...
Seems like there aren't many centrist communities where you can have nuanced discussions.
Hard to find nuance in anything the current government is doing
I honestly don't care about centrism, I care about diversity of ideas with citations for claims. If a left wing or right wing policy is the best for a given situation, I'd love to discuss it.
But failing that, I'll take centrist over either political extreme any day of the week.
load more comments
(3 replies)
You should see the Gab echo chamber, it's absolutely horrifying.
Far right radicalization will get worse if progressives leave X. Conservatives will stick around simply because they aren't banned and then the white supremacists will be free to start pulling them without push back.
I look at it this way: I don't let in the crazy person on the street screaming racist garbage into my house, so I also don't have to listen to or engage with that person on the internet, either. That doesn't make my house an "echo chamber."
For a long time I tried to treat "internet people" with some level of "respect" so to say. That is, I didn't spend time blocking people and whatnot. But now? Screw em. I don't have time to listen to nonsense, so if someone tries to come in to a conversation in bad faith, it's very easy to block and move on.
Or on short-form social media like Bsky or Masto or whatever if someone posts a racist thing. Or a bigoted thing. Block and move on.
Those trolls live off of engagement so just don't give it to them. And those same trolls are the ones complaining about "echo chambers." "Waaa, no one wants to listen to my racist nonsense. It's an echo chamber!" No, you are just a trash human, and no one is obligated to listen to you.
Those trolls live off of engagement
Not anymore. Back in the day trolling was a recreational activity done for fun. Deny the fun, cut off the troll's food. Now it's being done for political purposes, so cutting off the fun no longer functions since it no longer strikes at the primary motivation.
Deplatforming works.
The result for the people who block them is still the same, though: they no longer see the troll garbage.
It decreases the spread. Cutting form the engagement means free people who aren't already subscribed to that content will see it, since there's fewer people arguing with it. Which means those who are susceptible to falling for it have less chance to even encounter it, meaning fewer fall into it.
Even if the incentive to create the trolls has changed, the counter to letting it spread hasn't.
Depends on platform I suppose. Here, the level of activity is low enough that if you're reading the comments, you're usually reading all of them. In a major reddit sub that is seldom the case.
This was about bluesky/Twitter type social media. Things with reshare and follows to specific users, where someone you follow arguing with someone you don't will expose you to the person you don't follow.
No social media site controlled by Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg is going to be a healthy experience. You will have much more varied content anywhere else.
Groups of any kind are echo chambers. That's why they exist.
I doubt that it can be any worse than tech companies with financial incentives doing it. Surrounding yourself with like minded people will surely cause some bubbles like that but since when is letting a targeted algorithm funneling us for ad revenue a better option? I don’t personally think it’s a big deal and guessing that people are just upset that their obsession with mass engagement is getting shook.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't know that it'll affect the echo chamber effect; you create that through your subscriptions, and avoid it by browsing "all." What will be impacted is the amount of simply shit content, both from idiots and from bots. Moderators' jobs will get harder: the bots follow the people.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The echo chamber is a good thing. For some reason, everyone thinks I'm obligated to read their opinions that disagree diametrically with mine, constantly, non-stop, from hundreds of thousands of bots working for propaganda. I don't.
You are both right and wrong there.
You need different opinions in your life, otherwise your echo chamber will tend to move to more extremist. Pretty soon you think those "others" are evil and so you are willing for anti-democracy coups by your side, or to fight wars to kill those infidels or other evil things. You need a steady input of other opinions to remind yourself that reasonable people can disagree and that is okay.
Also sometimes you are wrong. Few people have the guts to read a well reasoned opinion and admit they are wrong, but it is one you should be willing for.
Of course there is far more possible opinions than you have time to read. So eventually you have to say I don't have time to deal with this subject and shut it out. So long as you avoid the problems of an echo chamber they are fine. Be aware of them though and make sure you are not falling into those traps anytime you shut something out.
I recognize and demand that everyone has an opinion, that everyone can speak their mind. And I have the right to have mine. And so, when all of Twitter is full of russian bots on the government payroll, there are hundreds of thousands of them, in all languages, I'm not kidding and not dramatizing. What i supposed to do about it? Read it all? Or retire to the echo chamber? I'm withdrawing, for now here, and if anything, from social media
load more comments
(4 replies)
The freedom of speech crowd isn't real big on the other half of the equation. Freedom of association. No one is obligated to listen to anyone else's bullshit. They're free to be butthurt about it, I'm free to not give a shit.
Well that's kind of baked-in to social media. If you'd otherwise talk to lots of different people in person, read much etc and now come to the internet and choose any of the mentioned platforms... That'd be bad. You're now in a smaller filter bubble. If you're already in some echo chamber and for example switch from mastodon to bluesky... that's a minor change. The situation is a bit different if you change from a nazi platform to a regular one. It's still not good. But better.
I've been on Bluesky very early on, and with the mass exodus of liberals from twitter, they are recreating their own toxic echo chambers on Bluesky now and it's bleeding through into every post they disagree with.
One thing to bear in mind is that, whenever someone accustomed to one platform explores another, they’ll tend to ascribe any differences between the communities to the other platform being an echo chamber of some kind.
It's like saying everyone who drinks water will die. It's correct, but it's not a problem.
Echo chambers exist everywhere.
IMO smaller populations lead to a stronger echo chamber effect. I've definitely noticed that the echoness of Threadiverse communities is generally a lot higher than corresponding subreddits and I suspect the small size plays a major role.
view more: next ›