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 🤪

  • Glide@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    What bugs me though is the idea that the root cause is members of a group agreeing too much.

    I just think you have this wrong. The root issue isn’t the group agreeing too much, and I don’t really think the collective opinion is that it is. The root issue is the belief that your constructed space of similiar world views is representative of truth, rather than bias.

    People assume, since everyone in their systematically built social media space agrees, that their opinion or action is widespread and therefore acceptable. When someone is told their views are damaging, unrealistic and/or represent a tiny minority, it is easy for their ego to refute this interally: “everyone online agrees.” The pre-cherry picked answers in the echo chamber then feeds into the fallacy of majority, the ego feels justified in rejecting the statements contrary to their opinion and world view, and no discussion is had. The conversation immediately stops (even if the talking continues) and no benefit is drawn from engaging with each others world views.