Doesn’t providing nuance counter the homogeneity? Also what’s the alternative? Algorithmically promotes content? But those create even more of an echo chamber as you only see what the algo thinks you’ll
personally engage with.
I guess meeting in person might be better - but even then your neighborhood is probably rather classist so idk how much you’d end up not in an echo chamber either :/
But it doesn’t really matter. As long as one uses multiple apps/forums, I.e different echo chambers, and touches grass in Wild West spaces from time to time, like reality, it’s all fine.
I think the effect of echo chambers is just altogether overblown, and also the natural inclination for a human to just stay in one place, not being curious to peek behind other curtains from time to time. The latter is one of the key traits of our species, we are just simply too curious to ever be completely taken by echo chambers. The individuals with less curiosity and more inclination to stay in place, not change anything, may have this problem more due to those traits. I.e. conservatives.
As long as ones curious and doesn’t explicitly communicate with other humans in one dedicated space, it’s all fine. It’s actively harmful to our psyche to be exposed to something like 4chan or Tate brothers academy just for the sake of not being in an echo chamber.
Nuance only sometimes counters the homogeneity, I think. People tend to respond highly emotionally when things are anonymous, no matter how strucured the content is. That’s why rage bait dominates our headlines! I don’t know. I certainly dont know a better approach. I haven’t really thought about it tbh. The modus operandi felt like it worked until it didn’t. Now look at us.
What’s “best for most” isn’t ever really gonna be best. But I have no idea how we best go about curating a digital society that is both democratic and not an echo chamber.
Doesn’t providing nuance counter the homogeneity? Also what’s the alternative? Algorithmically promotes content? But those create even more of an echo chamber as you only see what the algo thinks you’ll personally engage with.
I guess meeting in person might be better - but even then your neighborhood is probably rather classist so idk how much you’d end up not in an echo chamber either :/
But it doesn’t really matter. As long as one uses multiple apps/forums, I.e different echo chambers, and touches grass in Wild West spaces from time to time, like reality, it’s all fine.
I think the effect of echo chambers is just altogether overblown, and also the natural inclination for a human to just stay in one place, not being curious to peek behind other curtains from time to time. The latter is one of the key traits of our species, we are just simply too curious to ever be completely taken by echo chambers. The individuals with less curiosity and more inclination to stay in place, not change anything, may have this problem more due to those traits. I.e. conservatives.
As long as ones curious and doesn’t explicitly communicate with other humans in one dedicated space, it’s all fine. It’s actively harmful to our psyche to be exposed to something like 4chan or Tate brothers academy just for the sake of not being in an echo chamber.
Nuance only sometimes counters the homogeneity, I think. People tend to respond highly emotionally when things are anonymous, no matter how strucured the content is. That’s why rage bait dominates our headlines! I don’t know. I certainly dont know a better approach. I haven’t really thought about it tbh. The modus operandi felt like it worked until it didn’t. Now look at us.
What’s “best for most” isn’t ever really gonna be best. But I have no idea how we best go about curating a digital society that is both democratic and not an echo chamber.