And with the advent of the internet, that has become so much easier. We can find whatever niche we want and create our own echo chamber.
Before the internet, newspapers had to operate somewhat similarly to how our political parties operated. You had to offer enough to all people in your area that you'd be financially sustainable. Jonathan Sarna (a professor at Brandeis) has talked about this as to why US politics doesn't have the fringes that Europe does. Because American politicians are elected locally (for the most part), it becomes suicidal to be fringe. Sure, maybe 10% of the country agrees with you, but never 50% in any given area - no matter how liberal or conservative. By contrast European countries generally give a party representation in proportion to their take at the polls - even if they don't win a single district.
The internet is like that European system. There might not be enough in one area to support niches, but there are across a larger population.
And, to be honest, I find this a little troubling. On the positive side, there are more beliefs able to be published and heard. But really, what seems to happen is that the beliefs aren't heard wider - just more often by a sub group. And there are such things as wrong beliefs. Things that are scientifically inaccurate or something we might deem terrible for society (for example, I fell very comfortable saying that Nazism is a wrong belief). Before such echo chambers, there were at least buffers where one would have to hear wider (one could criticize, mainstream) views and wouldn't have people backing up their view constantly (or at least not exclusively).
It's quite the double-edged sword. I can understand why people like reading HuffPo or Fox News, but it can be somewhat dangerous. There's a great sorting trend happening in America where we surround ourselves with those who think only like us. Lack of contact with people who think differently both makes us demonize them (even if it's only to the "how could they think that" extent) and makes us very vulnerable. The second part needs some explanation. This makes us vulnerable in the same way that genetic engineering (or lack of bio diversity) would. Are we so arrogant (on all sides) to think that we have the answer (to life, the universe, and everything) that it wouldn't be good to hedge our bets?
I'm not saying that it's terrible or anything, just that one has to be careful about only thinking one way. If we aren't careful, we'll become people analogous to hammers and miss the solutions that aren't nails.
Before the internet, newspapers had to operate somewhat similarly to how our political parties operated. You had to offer enough to all people in your area that you'd be financially sustainable. Jonathan Sarna (a professor at Brandeis) has talked about this as to why US politics doesn't have the fringes that Europe does. Because American politicians are elected locally (for the most part), it becomes suicidal to be fringe. Sure, maybe 10% of the country agrees with you, but never 50% in any given area - no matter how liberal or conservative. By contrast European countries generally give a party representation in proportion to their take at the polls - even if they don't win a single district.
The internet is like that European system. There might not be enough in one area to support niches, but there are across a larger population.
And, to be honest, I find this a little troubling. On the positive side, there are more beliefs able to be published and heard. But really, what seems to happen is that the beliefs aren't heard wider - just more often by a sub group. And there are such things as wrong beliefs. Things that are scientifically inaccurate or something we might deem terrible for society (for example, I fell very comfortable saying that Nazism is a wrong belief). Before such echo chambers, there were at least buffers where one would have to hear wider (one could criticize, mainstream) views and wouldn't have people backing up their view constantly (or at least not exclusively).
It's quite the double-edged sword. I can understand why people like reading HuffPo or Fox News, but it can be somewhat dangerous. There's a great sorting trend happening in America where we surround ourselves with those who think only like us. Lack of contact with people who think differently both makes us demonize them (even if it's only to the "how could they think that" extent) and makes us very vulnerable. The second part needs some explanation. This makes us vulnerable in the same way that genetic engineering (or lack of bio diversity) would. Are we so arrogant (on all sides) to think that we have the answer (to life, the universe, and everything) that it wouldn't be good to hedge our bets?
I'm not saying that it's terrible or anything, just that one has to be careful about only thinking one way. If we aren't careful, we'll become people analogous to hammers and miss the solutions that aren't nails.