3 ms·

An echo chamber is any social group that repeatedly reinforces one set of viewpoints amongst themselves. Echo chambers usually form accidentally - any dissentin

An echo chamber is any social group that repeatedly reinforces one set of viewpoints amongst themselves. Echo chambers usually form accidentally - any dissenting voices to a narratove leave or are forced out and you end up with a single religious narrative. An open comment section is an open room. Each comment, and each commentor, is acting individually. There aren't really narratives because there's not enough cooperation to build one, if things are working well. As a recent example, consider the lab leak theory for covid. This was perfectly credible to begin with, was parroted by some bad faith actors, deemed a conspiracy theory and actually censored and removed from several sites.. and now we have really good evidence to suggest it may have been the origin of covid. In an echo chamber, you remove the truth. In an open room the truth can always exist, even if it's hidden.

crazydoggers 5y ago
> any dissenting voices to a narratove leave or are forced out and you end up with a single religious narrative. Religion has nothing to do with it. You don’t need to enforce or end up with a single “religious narrative”. For example a comment section on a science mag under an article about particle physics doesn’t need to talk about religion at all. People of all walks of faith can talk openly. Not allowing others to harass people with a religious viewpoint is the basis of freedom of religion. Your lab leak theory is a great example of this exact problem, because it’s full of misinformation, almost certainly learned from social media. Scientist don’t “rule out” or “censor” competing hypothesis. It just doesn’t work that way. If you have data that supports a lab leak, then you publish and people do further research. Only in the public social media talk did it take the form of “science and truth being censored” primarily due to the public’s poor understanding of how science functions. > In an echo chamber, you remove the truth” This just logically makes no sense. Let’s say by your definition an echo chamber forces out competing narratives. If it forces out the narrative that the earth is flat, it in no way has removed the truth. By your definition I’ve created an echo chamber that only “believes” in a non flat earth, and yet truth remains.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  The use of "religious" in my comment might be better phrased as "dogmatic".

crazydoggers 5y ago

> any dissenting voices to a narratove leave or are forced out and you end up with a single religious narrative. Religion has nothing to do with it. You don’t need to enforce or end up with a single “religious narrative”. For example a comment section on a science mag under an article about particle physics doesn’t need to talk about religion at all. People of all walks of faith can talk openly. Not allowing others to harass people with a religious viewpoint is the basis of freedom of religion. Your lab leak theory is a great example of this exact problem, because it’s full of misinformation, almost certainly learned from social media. Scientist don’t “rule out” or “censor” competing hypothesis. It just doesn’t work that way. If you have data that supports a lab leak, then you publish and people do further research. Only in the public social media talk did it take the form of “science and truth being censored” primarily due to the public’s poor understanding of how science functions. > In an echo chamber, you remove the truth” This just logically makes no sense. Let’s say by your definition an echo chamber forces out competing narratives. If it forces out the narrative that the earth is flat, it in no way has removed the truth. By your definition I’ve created an echo chamber that only “believes” in a non flat earth, and yet truth remains.

vorpalhex 5y ago
The use of "religious" in my comment might be better phrased as "dogmatic".