3 ms·

Much like another reply to this comment; your sentiment is one I've heard frequently, but never comes along with any supporting data. It certainly feels like a

Much like another reply to this comment; your sentiment is one I've heard frequently, but never comes along with any supporting data. It certainly feels like a reasonable statement; but anecdotally doesn't seem to jive with what I and friends have seen. Furthermore, I find it hard to accept that if there are bubbles on social media they are materially different than the natural geographic and social bubbles from the pre-internet age. Again another topic light on actual data to make more informed conclusions.

zitterbewegung 9y ago
You make a good point. I created my hypothesis based on my own anecdotal information. I think I should try doing some community analysis on a social network to test my hypothesis. https://snap.stanford.edu/data/ https://snap.stanford.edu/data/ looks like a good data source to try this out.
utexaspunk 9y ago
Eh, people have lots of friends that hold different beliefs than them. The problem with Facebook is it offers no way of registering your disagreement beyond commenting and starting a conversation which will have no depth because the lack of real comment threading renders any real dialogue impossible. Since most people don't feel like repeatedly getting involved in pointless debates with their friends, and are frustrated seeing posts they disagree with without any simple way of voicing their disapproval, they either use Facebook's tools to filter out those posts or just unfollow that friend entirely. The most misguided consumer and propagator of fake news will still mostly just see likes of their friends who are also misguided. They might get a brave friend chiming in here or there to disagree, but their comments are easily dismissed because they will have no depth. The majority of their friends may disagree, but they'll never know because those who disagree (if they haven't filtered/unfollowed them already) have no good way to show that they disagree. Facebook as it is currently designed mostly just serves to affirm whatever the user wants to believe. That's where the bubble effect comes from.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  You can avoid a conversation and post in opposition. You can suggest dissent by "like-ing" with a sad or angry face. If you make a post with an opposing view, or share someone else's then your friend group can use that opposing post to show their dissent for the initial post.
  - utexaspunk 9y ago
    Yeah, none of those are very good options.
ameister14 9y ago
I seem to recall that actually the social networks create the opposite - a feeling that outliers are more normal than they are - for example that if you're a pedophile, you are alone until the internet where you suddenly have a community telling you that you are the normal one. It's not just your shame to hide anymore, you've got a support group telling you you're right. I don't remember where I read about that, it was years ago, but it seems more logical than targeted ads having a significant effect. Now, regulated communities where karma allows you to hide opinions you disagree with so nobody can see the debate, that's a problem. It's one of the reasons people were so surprised this election.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

You make a good point. I created my hypothesis based on my own anecdotal information. I think I should try doing some community analysis on a social network to test my hypothesis. https://snap.stanford.edu/data/ https://snap.stanford.edu/data/ looks like a good data source to try this out.

utexaspunk 9y ago

Eh, people have lots of friends that hold different beliefs than them. The problem with Facebook is it offers no way of registering your disagreement beyond commenting and starting a conversation which will have no depth because the lack of real comment threading renders any real dialogue impossible. Since most people don't feel like repeatedly getting involved in pointless debates with their friends, and are frustrated seeing posts they disagree with without any simple way of voicing their disapproval, they either use Facebook's tools to filter out those posts or just unfollow that friend entirely. The most misguided consumer and propagator of fake news will still mostly just see likes of their friends who are also misguided. They might get a brave friend chiming in here or there to disagree, but their comments are easily dismissed because they will have no depth. The majority of their friends may disagree, but they'll never know because those who disagree (if they haven't filtered/unfollowed them already) have no good way to show that they disagree. Facebook as it is currently designed mostly just serves to affirm whatever the user wants to believe. That's where the bubble effect comes from.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
You can avoid a conversation and post in opposition. You can suggest dissent by "like-ing" with a sad or angry face. If you make a post with an opposing view, or share someone else's then your friend group can use that opposing post to show their dissent for the initial post.
- utexaspunk 9y ago
  Yeah, none of those are very good options.

ameister14 9y ago

I seem to recall that actually the social networks create the opposite - a feeling that outliers are more normal than they are - for example that if you're a pedophile, you are alone until the internet where you suddenly have a community telling you that you are the normal one. It's not just your shame to hide anymore, you've got a support group telling you you're right. I don't remember where I read about that, it was years ago, but it seems more logical than targeted ads having a significant effect. Now, regulated communities where karma allows you to hide opinions you disagree with so nobody can see the debate, that's a problem. It's one of the reasons people were so surprised this election.