4 ms·

The "echo chambers are a myth" statement seems a bit disingenuous to me, and misses the increased algorithmic exposure to hate in social feeds that we otherwise

The "echo chambers are a myth" statement seems a bit disingenuous to me, and misses the increased algorithmic exposure to hate in social feeds that we otherwise would not see offline.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
phasnox 5y ago
This. I did an experiment to make the algorithm think I'm left wing on alternate accounts. Not to much time passed before my feed was filled with the most hideous and stupid things some "right wing" people did. It is the same on my primary accounts but the other way around. No wonder we hate each other.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  If you continue this experiment, maybe they algorithms will catch on and the recommendations will be tailored to program a split personality into you, so instead of losing influence on one customer, both partisan sides of yourself will become two useful, valuable customers.
pcmoney 5y ago
A lot of research has been done on this. For most people their IRL social circle is a much smaller and stronger bubble than what their online presence is exposed to. Even a classic “echo chamber” online is likely to expose most people to greater diversity of thought than their offline life does. For more reading on this I suggest “Breaking the Social Media Prism” Also note: research shows anon accounts tend to result in more nuanced and less partisan discussion.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  IRL social circles are also, for the most part, geographically constrained to those one meets in everyday life. Possibly geographically distributed for professionals amongst co-workers or contacts within ones career track. Online echo chambers, for better or worse, collect those of a similar interest and/or ideology from around the world. As with, say, Hacker News. That may be benign, or it may not be. The inspiration and action are what matter. But the end result is that groups that would have no capacity to form and organise through physical contact, and which would be only very weakly integrated through print or broadcast medium, can emerge online. Again, that might be a positive or a negative development. But what it isn't is either equivalent to IRL associations or a continuation of previous patterns of organisation. And to that extent, Petersen's claims are grossly disingenuous.
wobblybubble 5y ago
It seems disingenuous to you because you disagree with it? Seems like a misapplication of that particular word.

The "echo chambers are a myth" statement seems a bit disingenuous to me, and misses the increased algorithmic exposure to hate in social feeds that we otherwise would not see offline.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

phasnox 5y ago

This. I did an experiment to make the algorithm think I'm left wing on alternate accounts. Not to much time passed before my feed was filled with the most hideous and stupid things some "right wing" people did. It is the same on my primary accounts but the other way around. No wonder we hate each other.

JetAlone 5y ago
If you continue this experiment, maybe they algorithms will catch on and the recommendations will be tailored to program a split personality into you, so instead of losing influence on one customer, both partisan sides of yourself will become two useful, valuable customers.

pcmoney 5y ago

A lot of research has been done on this. For most people their IRL social circle is a much smaller and stronger bubble than what their online presence is exposed to. Even a classic “echo chamber” online is likely to expose most people to greater diversity of thought than their offline life does. For more reading on this I suggest “Breaking the Social Media Prism” Also note: research shows anon accounts tend to result in more nuanced and less partisan discussion.

dredmorbius 5y ago
IRL social circles are also, for the most part, geographically constrained to those one meets in everyday life. Possibly geographically distributed for professionals amongst co-workers or contacts within ones career track. Online echo chambers, for better or worse, collect those of a similar interest and/or ideology from around the world. As with, say, Hacker News. That may be benign, or it may not be. The inspiration and action are what matter. But the end result is that groups that would have no capacity to form and organise through physical contact, and which would be only very weakly integrated through print or broadcast medium, can emerge online. Again, that might be a positive or a negative development. But what it isn't is either equivalent to IRL associations or a continuation of previous patterns of organisation. And to that extent, Petersen's claims are grossly disingenuous.

wobblybubble 5y ago

It seems disingenuous to you because you disagree with it? Seems like a misapplication of that particular word.