> 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

> 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.