this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
21 points (100.0% liked)

Chat

7510 readers
10 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
21
On the making of an echo chamber (beehaw.org)
submitted 3 weeks ago by luciole@beehaw.org to c/chat@beehaw.org
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The widely held belief of the echo chamber has been bothering me for a while now. I don't question the phenomenon itself. It's happened often enough; I totally agree this is a thing. What bugs me though is the idea that the root cause is members of a group agreeing too much.

Agreement is good wtf. Consensus should be a welcome occasional checkpoint. How are you even supposed to build healthy communities if you don't share some common ground, like say equality for all. Sealioning is not a vaccine against radicalization. If anything the constant bickering from contrarians has the opposite effect.

Diversity may be a better sign of healthy community. Diversity of age, origins, gender, whatever. I don't believe such a community turns into a radicalization timebomb for being like-minded. We need shared values to build upon, lest loneliness swallows us all.

Nevertheless I feel that obsessing over the homogeneous aspect of an echo chamber is mistaking the symptoms for the essence. My intuition is that the danger is in the discourse itself and to a certain extent in the platform used. I can't say I've made up my mind on the specifics though.

What do you think? It's OK if you disagree lol 🤪

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

if you have a ‘liberal space’ and some conservative attempts to bring fascist ideas to the table, they are not flat out rejected. they are admonished for the facts inherent in fascism.

In the process of doing that admonishing you are inherently changing the kinds of conversations that happen in that space.

Sometimes it okay to take some positions for granted so you can have deeper conversations about specific ideas and that only happens when there is agreement about certain facts.

Constant disagreement paralyzes action and is the same tactic that people use to sterilize social movements.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~