3 ms·

Well presumably the parent to my comment is implying that echo chambers are only problematic if they are "imposed" upon you by "the algorithm", which I would di

by vp8989 6y ago

Well presumably the parent to my comment is implying that echo chambers are only problematic if they are "imposed" upon you by "the algorithm", which I would disagree with. The problem is that people have become hyper-partisan en masse and whether they arrived there because of "the algorithm" or because they intentionally filter out sources they disagree with ... it doesn't really matter. https://www.allsides.com/filter-bubbles https://www.allsides.com/filter-bubbles The real problem (in my humble opinion) is that there is too much news and it's almost all intentionally biased to some extent. It's therefore not practical for people to keep up with the news without entering an echo chamber. You would have to, for each instance of "news", read at least 3 versions of it to ensure you are considering all perspectives. No one is going to do that. Do people want to consume net unbiased news? Everyone says they do but consumption patterns says otherwise. Is it commercially viable to produce unbiased news? It used to be favorable but now distribution is cheap and there is more competition so the incentives are to be more biased and find a niche. I don't think this is a solvable problem, the genie is out of the bottle. This is just a price we pay societally for having the Internet.

raffraffraff 6y ago
Absolutely. Apparently CSPAN's coverage of the US election was far more even-handed, but people want to watch Fox or CNN because they're drawn to the smell of blood from the tribal war. People love to band together with their tribe to hate other tribes. It's sad because when you look at the basic needs of all people, they're the same. And when you put a reasonable Democrat into a room with a reasonable Republican, ban any talk of party affiliations and just discuss those basic needs they'll agree more than they disagree. The internet is a marvel, but humans didn't evolve the ability to stay rational in large numbers, so ultimately I think we're better off without it.
crispyambulance 6y ago
> whether they arrived there because of "the algorithm" or because they intentionally filter out sources they disagree with ... it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, we're each responsible for making sense of the world from news sources. People get too hung up on the concept of "unbiased". I think that's an unrealistic ideal when it comes to politics. It's like wanting to eat fruit but always expecting it to be peeled for you, meticulously, and placed on your plate without blemishes or bruises. While it's certainly possible to responsibly and critically "consume a feed" that has been algorithmically generated for you based on your history of media consumption behavior and your social network attributes-- it's much more efficient to seek out high quality sources of information. That doesn't mean block out everything you disagree with, but it does mean block out noise and consider what you give your attention to. You can't do that easily when a third party is dumping garbage onto the page for the sake of motivations that have little to do with informing you.

by vp8989 6y ago

raffraffraff 6y ago

Absolutely. Apparently CSPAN's coverage of the US election was far more even-handed, but people want to watch Fox or CNN because they're drawn to the smell of blood from the tribal war. People love to band together with their tribe to hate other tribes. It's sad because when you look at the basic needs of all people, they're the same. And when you put a reasonable Democrat into a room with a reasonable Republican, ban any talk of party affiliations and just discuss those basic needs they'll agree more than they disagree. The internet is a marvel, but humans didn't evolve the ability to stay rational in large numbers, so ultimately I think we're better off without it.

crispyambulance 6y ago

> whether they arrived there because of "the algorithm" or because they intentionally filter out sources they disagree with ... it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, we're each responsible for making sense of the world from news sources. People get too hung up on the concept of "unbiased". I think that's an unrealistic ideal when it comes to politics. It's like wanting to eat fruit but always expecting it to be peeled for you, meticulously, and placed on your plate without blemishes or bruises. While it's certainly possible to responsibly and critically "consume a feed" that has been algorithmically generated for you based on your history of media consumption behavior and your social network attributes-- it's much more efficient to seek out high quality sources of information. That doesn't mean block out everything you disagree with, but it does mean block out noise and consider what you give your attention to. You can't do that easily when a third party is dumping garbage onto the page for the sake of motivations that have little to do with informing you.