I think the echo chamber one misses the point (or maybe the analogy of an echo chamber is bad).
It's true that people are exposed to other views, but there is still the echo effect of what their bubble thinks of those other views. Two people discussing their differences is not the same as two (or N) bubbles hurling outrage at one another, which I think is closer to most of twitter - the echo chamber still applies within your bubble and its criticism of others
The vast majority of people's exposure to other views are just the dumbest iterations of said views, for the express purpose of "dunking" on them to further calcify their previously held positions also. At least on twitter the goal is to find morons on the other side of the ideological divide and mock them.
I am not talking about obvious (and easily labeled morons), but instead there are many educated and real scientists that raise questions and there is no dialogue, but instead only defunct-fact checkers totalitarian response.
Science is always open to listen, discuss and stand open to be corrected and in no time in history there was "attack on me is attack on science" attitudes that ended up be right or productive.
It is circus in all places without this approach and open dialogue.
It's 280 now, but the point is the same: The system has been engineered from the ground up to create an environment that ENcourages insipid repetition, and actively DIScourages insightful discourse. I fear this will somehow get worse with Jack's departure.
Kind of reminds me when one of the foremost mRNA researchers, Dr. Robert Malone was temporarily banned on LinkedIn regarding his views on the vaccine. While speaking at a JRE interview, he says later on after the ban, LinkedIn (probably after public backlash) sent him an apology letter, quoting they could not assemble a team (or they themselves were not) qualified enough to fact-check him. Let that sink in for a moment...
When did we turn to social media spaces to get our health facts from. Fact checking from big tech is the silliest thing normal people have embraced on the Internet. Kind of loony when you think of the historical context of the internet.
I also don't understand that position. If somebody doing research in a certain domain comes to talk about that domain, then whatever they say will be relevant. Even if ill-intentioned, they will know their stuff and come up with a valid critique which needs or needs not to be taken into consideration. Now if a neuro surgeon - even if genial and successful - talks about vaccines, there's already a serious chance the topic goes astray, and the further a person removed from field is the lower the trustworthiness of their comment. I know, there are exceptions to this rule, and everyone thinks they are that exception...
I think that stretches the definition of 'echo chamber'. That's simply what a community is, a group of like-minded people with shared views.
There's nothing automatically wrong with this. People can have shared criticisms of others if there is some meaningful difference between the groups that justifies that disagreement. I think people mistake 'hurling outrage' with simply two (or more) groups being fundamentally in disagreement.
The answer to this is actually the opposite of what people commonly suggest. Just let people with irreconcilable differences go their own way which is why I like the researchers suggestion to improve tools to shield oneself from hate.
Instead of demonizing so called 'echo chambers' I think we should just call it what it is, freedom of association.
"echo chamber" completely misses the point: exposure to outrageous posts is the goal.
If you want constructive dialog that builds towards an actionable plan a dedicated forum and a wiki would be the right tools.
Its just dumb to use a platform that exposes your imagination to people who think the exact opposite - and does so on purpose!
Band aid solutions where these fools get to have their precious walled garden internet empire and eat it too are just never going to work.
You post a picture of your dinner on facebook and some are going to think it looks disgusting. One vegetarian is going to take time out of their busy day (30 seconds) to write a couple of sentences describing your plate full of boiled corpses. Your bestie says it is mean to say that. RE: It is mean to eat animals. You have a hard time deleting your besies comment while they summon the cohords to deal with this vegitarian picking on you. 6 months later and you are still talking about it.
I agree that echo chambers aren't bad by default, the issue is they commonly fall into groupthink patterns. If the subject doesnt have a strong tie to reality it's easy to trend towards extremism.
It is basically incorrect. Most people in these ingroups are hesitant about sharing things in public. They know it is not ok. The most communication is done within closed safe environments. I have several sect-members on FB and the total noise they make in my feed is very low.
It's true that people are exposed to other views, but there is still the echo effect of what their bubble thinks of those other views. Two people discussing their differences is not the same as two (or N) bubbles hurling outrage at one another, which I think is closer to most of twitter - the echo chamber still applies within your bubble and its criticism of others