
Whether You’re a Democrat or Republican, Your Social Media Is an Echo Chamber - prostoalex
http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/to-rescue-democracy-go-outside
======
ceades
We've looked at this exact issue from a PR perspective as well. In the media
generally, there are some outlets that are blatantly one sided one way or
another on certain issues, essentially just covert mouthpieces for certain
organizations. What we've found is that it's not worth the effort to actually
respond to hit pieces from those outlets, because they are only picked up on
social media in circles of people that only talk to each other and are already
incredibly biased against us. By even responding to the article in any way, we
are just extending the shelf life of the piece within those circles. So there
are now entire outlets we completely ignore from a PR perspective because it
is simply a waste of our time and entirely counter-productive to respond to.
We only respond to legitimate articles that are actually picked up by social
media circles that we care about, which we have essentially mapped out.

~~~
dilemma
There are no outlets that are not blatantly one-sided. If you believe so, your
perspective has been narrowed by a filter bubble so that even minute
variations of the same message seem great to you.

~~~
sbmassey
Any media with a sufficiently large number of consumers is indistinguishable
from propaganda.

------
cableshaft
Well, I have a few friends that don't share my opinions on political things,
and I do try to read their posts. It can be hard sometimes. It's easier to
read extremely different points of view when they're not your friends, I
think. But also easier to dismiss the alternative ideas too, I think.

And I think that's why it's harder to read friend's posts. You're wanting to
see things from your friend's point of view, so you can be a good friend, but
normally those opinions given by some random asshole on the internet would
allow you to call them a moron and scroll past it.

------
jwtadvice
When I try to strike a neutral chord, analyzing policy promises or detailing
scandals of both political candidates in single sentences/paragraphs each side
takes my inclusion of any criticism of their candidate, regardless of the fact
I've also criticized the other candidate, to imply I am "on the other side"
and am a supporter of the candidate that they are against.

It's been nearly impossible to make statements like "both candidates have
historically low voter confidence", "neither candidate this debate spoke
honestly or at length about their policy positions", etc without being called
- in a denigrading way - a "Clinton supporter" or a "Trump supporter", as
though they were curse words.

I've alienated many of my friends by posting nonpartisan policymaking
documents, news that isn't from their favorite self-righteous outlets, and
realpolitik explanations of the context of various ongoing policy questions
(proxy war aspect of Syria, containment and historical aspect of Korean
Peninsula, containment aspect of TPP/South China Sea, economic and political
warfare in Venezuela, food security wrt Haiti, etc, etc).

My understanding is that as the technology to convince people of ideology
increases in its capability, competing applications of that technology by
power centers will achieve ever-increasing divisions.

That is to say the ideological spectrum, and current division, isn't a
representation of a natural social occurrence as much as it is a proliferation
of technologies by information agencies and corporations. Tens of billions of
dollars a year are spent in America trying to influence opinions, and this
effort has been succeeding.

A race to the intellectual bottom.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
I recently found out that Orwell was really concerned about the effects of
radio. We've since had 70 years of television and I can count the number of
titles that cover the subconscious effects of that sort of communications on
one, maybe both hands.

Most of what we now call "ideology" isn't even ideology. I don't know how
people who don't understand the basic heritage of most of the ideas they hear
even listen to anything. Most of the points of disagreement between two
competing ideologies aren't that significant in the end analysis. They are at
least small in number, and should be understandable well by proponents and
opponents alike. But run on the track of narrative, and they gain a lot of
power.

But I view the idea that this is a reflection of anything approaching actual
"power" to be questionable. It's holding a mirror up to people and asking them
to approve. There's no "gain" from it, outside of areas where we're attempting
to measure opinion. Now, it does get people elected. But look how well that is
going.

I miss people like Wm. F. Buckley and Christopher Hitchens, who would
acknowledge their biases and even explain the reasons behind them. There is a
PBS "Independent Lens", "Best Enemies" that seems to identify the exact point
at which the present era began - the 1968 "debates" between Buckley and Gore
Vidal. ABC "won" ratings with it and it's been downhill ever since.

~~~
jwtadvice
I remember reading a definition from a DoD document for 'legitimacy': "the
willingness of people to act according to the will of a government without
coercive compulsion."

In the same vein a definition for 'power': "The degree to which outcomes can
be influenced into a desirable state."

The ability to build and dissolve legitimacy absolutely is power. The ability
to build consensus and through that consensus change outcomes absolutely is
power.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
I sort of disagree - I think the collective wisdom of a people is latent and
needs only be discovered. It may contain inconsistencies which require
professionals to help with, but the problem with your way is that people can
seek power for its own sake. I think it's been shown that "desirable" is
extremely fungible. Sometimes "desirable" becomes "regrettable", later on.

I thank you for those definitions, though - that's some cogitatin' for me to
be done there. They're kind of value-free definitions. Can't tell if that is
bad or good.

~~~
jwtadvice
To be clear I'm not stating what I believe is the ideal for the world.

I'm describing how I perceive that the world - power - and information
demonstrably work today.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Understood - and I got that quite clearly. I don't know why, but I still think
of this as a discovery process and less "architecture". I think "architecture"
is in fashion now.

------
ihsw
Both sides relish in demonizing each-other, reducing the other side to simple
statements like deplorable or corrupt beyond measure.

I shutter to think of a time when presidential candidates refuse to even
acknowledge that the other is a human, or correct obscene errors in
judgement[1] borne from descending into the echo chamber and never coming out.

That said, tribalism is as old as time immemorial. An echo chamber is not
inherently harmful but the content going into it can be -- more to the point,
it behooves our leaders of communities (and the world at large) to acknowledge
each-other in a manner that shows the best of us maintain a base minimum of
dignity and restraint.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnRU3ocIH4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnRU3ocIH4)

~~~
dibujante
This. I feel that that was the last instance of bi-partisan civility in US
politics.

------
Illniyar
Social media also makes it easy to get exposed to opposing views.

I make it a point to subscribe and follow people/groups with very opposing
views to mine (as long as they are articulate).

Such a thing was not very possible to do before social networks, and being
exposed to such thing have changed my mind several times (or at least moved me
to the middle ground).

~~~
thirteenfingers
I think that's a great approach. Personally I haven't been on social media for
a couple years now (for various reasons including concerns over data privacy)
but I considered having all those opposing views at hand to be one of the
principal benefits of social media - in fact, that was the main reason I
stayed on social media as long as I did.

> Such a thing was not very possible to do before social networks

I would say it was _definitely_ possible, it just took a bit more effort.
(Since leaving social media I've made a point of reading left-wing and right-
wing opinion sites side-by-side. It's very illuminating.)

That said, it does seem like for the average user the _tendency_ is for social
media to become an echo chamber.

Edit: formatting

------
wffurr
I wish I had an echo chamber. My social media has a lot of my friends and
family from all over the political spectrum. I have sworn off Facebook until
after the election, because all of the crazy out there makes me really mad.
It's like listening in on someone else's echo chamber full of crazy.

Real engagement and connection is hard work. It's mentally and emotionally
exhausting, and only occasionally useful.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." \- George
Orwell.

------
DanielBMarkham
Related: I ran across an article I wanted to post the other day, but it's a
really, really long read. Anything that takes 30-60 minutes to read is non-
workable on HN. By the time anybody has read it, it's off the page.

This is from 2 years ago. It's about how people naturally form groups, social
media or not. What technology is doing is automating and accelerating a
bug/feature in our genetic makeup.

If you're interested in this topic, after you read the linked article, check
this article out as well.

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup/)

------
berberous
The echo chamber is becoming even worse this election season. I've seen
numerous friends post "If you support Trump -- you are an awful human being,
please unfriend me". Personally, I at least like to see what other people are
thinking.

------
j2bax
I must have an uncommon group of friends... I hear all sorts of views from
friends/family that I consider ludicrous on a daily basis on Facebook.

~~~
chadgeidel
I hear that stuff too. IMHO, I'd like to hear well-reasoned arguments for "the
opposing view" but it's typically just memes.

~~~
davidw
That's the problem isn't it. I do have people that I care about on FB with
different views, but they often just share inane memes that are not really
grounded in reality. To be fair, I see a lot of trite memes from people I
mostly agree with too, though.

I think the "bullshit asymmetry principle" comes into play too: it takes 2
seconds to share some lame conspiracy garbage about how the pope was really
born on Uranus or whatever, but in most cases takes a bit more work and fact
checking to refute the BS.

------
oh_sigh
I support Trump and I get to hear on my facebook 10x a day why my support
means I am a racist, sexist, uneducated, redneck, world-hating idiot.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
If I may, have you read any of Scott Adams analysis of the techniques in use?

It is not like it is specific to Trump; he just does it to a greater degree
than others.

~~~
oh_sigh
Yup - I've been reading his blog since 2014 or so. Why do you ask?

~~~
ArkyBeagle
So if the guy is simply a refinement on a carnival barker , I can't take him
seriously.

~~~
oh_sigh
Then...don't read his blog?

~~~
ArkyBeagle
No. Trump. Trump is the carnival barker.

But nicely done :)

~~~
oh_sigh
I disagree, but you're free to think that. What he does is effective politics.
All politicans do it. Look at the recent wall st transcripts of Hillary
clinton and see how she talks to them, versus how she talks to "everyday
Americans".

------
dilemma
The thing about the "echo chamber" or "filter bubble" argument is that it is
always about _other people_.

The actual title of this article says it all, "To Rescue Democracy, Go
Outside" \-- this is paternalistic drivel, written only for the writer to be
able to elevate themselves above the unwashed masses.

I'm not in an echo chamber. I live far away from my home country, speak three
languages, and meet 20 different nationalities daily.

The author on the other hand, being deeply embedded within one of America's
most prestigious educational institutions, is having his every thought
filtered by his immediate social environment. I'm certain he doesn't "mix"
with the rabble:

>So what would happen if the way we interacted with each other forced us to
mix with people of different groups? If we didn’t allow ourselves to dive ever
deeper into self-reinforcing groups? What would happen if we mixed primarily
through that quaint and old-fashioned technique, namely moving about in our
physical environment, encountering opinions and perspectives that we did not
pre-select? Could we counter the devil’s brew of single-community media
combined with physical segregation? My research at MIT strongly suggests that
the answer is yes. In businesses, on the street, and in peer groups, ideas are
shaped more by face-to-face interaction than by digital media.13, 14

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
_written only for the writer to be able to elevate themselves above the
unwashed masses._

 _I 'm not in an echo chamber._

Okay

------
rm_-rf_slash
My city is an echo chamber. Ithaca, NY is quite liberal, although once you
drive 20 minutes in any direction, rural upstate New York is as conservative
as Alabama. And yet our district's representative is a Tea Party schmuck - who
pays absolutely no attention at all to "the extreme Ithaca liberals" \-
because of gerrymandering.

So given that, it's not unreasonable to think that the people I meet and
befriend in this city also share liberal views, even while entire communities
around Ithaca have completely different beliefs.

Sometimes it scares me how politicized everything is becoming. Just the
perception of being "the wrong kind" of voter could deter liberals from moving
to the south to get away from cold winters, while conservatives would imagine
themselves having trouble fitting in in (liberal) economic powerhouses like
San Francisco.

I just want the mechanisms of society to function efficiently, and for people
to be able to disagree with each other's political opinions without souring
everything else.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
People don't have enough to do.

------
davidivadavid
The question that nobody seems to be willing to ask is the following: who
cares?

People don't like to experience cognitive dissonance so they stay within a
group of people who do not cause cognitive dissonance.

When people are particularly intellectually adventurous, they Google things
like "[something I believe] criticism" and they try to see the other point of
view.

I have to apologize for being lazy in not developing the idea myself to make
it justice, but certainly someone has a well developed counterpoint to offer
to all that fear mongering about "filter bubbles" and "echo chambers"? Why,
for instance, are people calling them that, instead of "safe spaces", or
"friends bubbles", or "intellectual neighborhoods"?

I'm aware of a few books (Eli Pariser's) and papers (Brynjolfsson's paper on
balkanization, most notably), but it seems like there's not much research done
on that question. Any pointers welcome.

~~~
PravlageTiem
It's not the others that cause cognitive dissonance. The dissonance is caused
when your in-group AGREES with the others.

Without an in-group, the others are just datum to digest and process.

Without others, the in-group is just casually asserting the supremacy of its
models over reality.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
But can there be groups of humans without resorting to status-seeking? It
appears to be worth it ( read: people still do it ).

The point of being in the in-group is being in the in-group, not the defense
of some deep principle. If it's a sufficiently murderous in-group, then being
in the in-group equates to staying alive.

------
squozzer
The problem with the "physical space" solution is that it eventually becomes
an echo chamber as "undesirables" achieve outplacement.

~~~
bbctol
Even if it doesn't move people out, the pre-existing biases of physical space
causes an echo chamber regardless. Before social media, people had no problem
demonizing the people of different races and religions who were not
geographically close, and with far more destructive consequences than partisan
bickering in the US. Face-to-face interactions may only provide more diversity
in a few remarkable places.

------
carsongross
Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of work on this problem:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc)

I would like to see peaceful political secessionism happen, so that as we sort
ourselves out ideologically we can also sort ourselves out physically and
sovereign-ly.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Not very practical, is it? I think the process is fractal down to the basic
fundamental tribe-size of 100 or so. The transaction costs of tribes of 100
interacting without a larger macro social network would be substantial.

~~~
carsongross
Yes, any potential innovation can be made to seem ridiculous by sufficient
over-application.

In the real world, secessionism appears to be on the rise, with Brexit and the
ongoing Spanish situation. Let us hope that Scotland is next, and we have an
increasing number of templates for peaceful devolution of sovereignty.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
I think there is much to recommend this. Sadly, most of that is people's sense
of identity, a generator of all manner of irrationality. But we work with what
we have, I suppose.

Edward Longshanks took (rather forceful) exception to Scots secession. Abraham
Lincoln took (even more forceful - why was the Anaconda Plan abandoned,
anyway?) exception to Southern secession. I know Texas secessionists (
glancingly, not well ) and I tend to quote Sam Houston to them. They're not to
be taken seriously. Yet.

I see no reason to think the pattern would abate. Brexit isn't in that set
because the Eurozone is barely even a convenient fiction. It's a con job, the
sort it would take an H.L. Mencken to characterize properly.

I can't even choose a pet narrative of how it is we should be organized in
that way. I just know how it is - we're in really big chunks. I credit the
sort of peace we now enjoy somewhat _to_ the size of those chunks.

------
stirner
I have the opposite experience. I tend to click on content that I disagree
with, to investigate the claims being made, and don't engage much with content
I already know I agree with. As a result, my feed is more or less a list of
posts guaranteed to infuriate me.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
But it's a matter of sublimating that fury, isn't it? You really do have to
give (most) people benefit of the doubt.

