I’ve been on Bluesky very early on, and with the mass exodus of liberals from twitter, they are recreating their own toxic echo chambers on Bluesky now and it’s bleeding through into every post they disagree with.
I don’t know that it’ll affect the echo chamber effect; you create that through your subscriptions, and avoid it by browsing “all.” What will be impacted is the amount of simply shit content, both from idiots and from bots. Moderators’ jobs will get harder: the bots follow the people.
Live_Let_Live@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 14:52
collapse
even if it doesn’t isn’t having more twitters bad? because it causes more places of toxicity to exist
People need to be civil. On every platform they have shown that they can’t be (or have no good reason to choose to be).
Moderation is the key, but moderation is challenging. That’s why self moderation (keeping yourself civil) is very important. Which loops us back to the beginning.
flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
on 03 Dec 14:31
nextcollapse
I don’t know how it could get any worse than now. Basically we’re all in echo chambers whichever platform you use. Including Lemmy.
Agreement with “consensus” of whatever bucket you’re placed into is rewarded, and disagreement is punished. Even if only by upvote/downvote. Switching platforms won’t change much.
If you stray from world, things are a bit better. World, however, hasn’t seen a ban or anti-free speech action they didn’t embrace fully. World is a cesspool of smug libs that refuse to engage with anyone they perceive to be on their left or right.
I haven’t had any issues with .world. Ive had more issues with smaller instances banning people/topics. World seems like the most bland or popular of the lemmy instances.
Most of the issues I have with world are invisible because the comments are removed and the users are banned. As long as you stick with their narrative (that Trump bad and Biden/Kamala good) you won’t run afowl of them.
Cant you see everything via the modlist + API? I thought that was one of the benefits of Lemmy is that the modlist is open. I have seen people down-voted for specific comments but not banned.
After looking at your “evidence”, I still disagree with the ban. Linkerbaan was angry at people literally preventing the truth about an actual genocide being broadcast live for all to see.
Downvote those you disagree with and walk away. Banning is for death threats and stuff like that. Calling people names like “fascist” is not abuse. It’s public discourse.
Calling someone a Zionist when they’re arguing AGAINST a ceasefire is ABSOLUTELY not below the belt. Zionist isn’t a slur. It’s a word used by actual Zionist’s.
Calling someone zionist is not a slur. Calling someone a bot is also not a slur. Both are thought-terminating cliches. Also, by thread, I meant including the comments as well. Plus you have the trolling.
I can agree that they’re cliches and perhaps thought terminating.
I “have the trolling”. Are you implying that I’m trolling? If I’m trolling, every single hippie in the 60’s was also trolling when they asked for peace.
dingdongmetacarples@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 20:29
nextcollapse
Talk about blaming the victim. I’d challenge you to create an account and put that you’re trans in the profile. See how long it takes to get death threats. There is a reason for these block lists. Maybe people don’t want to get harassed every time they post something.
Also, where is the “most blocked accounts” list in that link?
That people create blocklists that become popular absolutely does not prove endorsement of a potential official blocklist. While an official, default blocklist may be Orwellian, unofficial opt-in blocklists that require searching for are not Orwellian at all. One knows they're there, one chooses to block them. Your line of reasoning leads to arguing against the block feature entirely. And what's wrong with providing transparent statistics?
You can barely detect your own biases! Have a great day. Continue with the fascist bullshit pretending you are ordained from some higher power.
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Nothing in there contradicts what I said here… There’s not fascist about preventing fascism from taking root. You’re making the same mistake made in “On Authority”, and calling revolutions where the people cast off their chains of oppression as “Authoritarian”…
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
on 03 Dec 14:35
nextcollapse
Well that's kind of baked-in to social media. If you'd otherwise talk to lots of different people in person, read much etc and now come to the internet and choose any of the mentioned platforms... That'd be bad. You're now in a smaller filter bubble. If you're already in some echo chamber and for example switch from mastodon to bluesky... that's a minor change. The situation is a bit different if you change from a nazi platform to a regular one. It's still not good. But better.
It’s like saying everyone who drinks water will die. It’s correct, but it’s not a problem.
Echo chambers exist everywhere.
AnotherWorld@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 14:56
nextcollapse
The echo chamber is a good thing. For some reason, everyone thinks I’m obligated to read their opinions that disagree diametrically with mine, constantly, non-stop, from hundreds of thousands of bots working for propaganda. I don’t.
You need different opinions in your life, otherwise your echo chamber will tend to move to more extremist. Pretty soon you think those "others" are evil and so you are willing for anti-democracy coups by your side, or to fight wars to kill those infidels or other evil things. You need a steady input of other opinions to remind yourself that reasonable people can disagree and that is okay.
Also sometimes you are wrong. Few people have the guts to read a well reasoned opinion and admit they are wrong, but it is one you should be willing for.
Of course there is far more possible opinions than you have time to read. So eventually you have to say I don't have time to deal with this subject and shut it out. So long as you avoid the problems of an echo chamber they are fine. Be aware of them though and make sure you are not falling into those traps anytime you shut something out.
I recognize and demand that everyone has an opinion, that everyone can speak their mind. And I have the right to have mine. And so, when all of Twitter is full of russian bots on the government payroll, there are hundreds of thousands of them, in all languages, I’m not kidding and not dramatizing. What i supposed to do about it? Read it all? Or retire to the echo chamber? I’m withdrawing, for now here, and if anything, from social media
Its becoming more clear that the only winning move is not to play. All of us should remember that twitter wasnt the best before musk either. Microblogging at such a large and worldwide scale is simply an outdated, deceptive, and abusive concept at this point. For a long time we have been fucking around and now we found out
I watched a video about this and it claims that social media has advanced and grown so much that our brains are still not used to it and we all act as if echo chambers are a bad thing when in reality its actually just how its been for our entire existence. Its how we are wired right now, atleast most of us besides Gen Alpha. Being active in a local tribe, community, city, etc. Not engaging with the entire world and thousands of people at once.
If by bots you mean computer programs or AI, they are not people and should be ignored/blocked. If you mean (as seems to be common) people with a different opinion, then you need to be more careful lest you get the faults of an echo chamber.
By bots, I mean people who are employed, go to work, and get paid just for writing comments, posts, and other texts, according to the orders from their superiors. You can call them a computer program, but what they are not is a person with a certain and different point of view. They have no point of view, they write what they are told to write, and yes, there are thousands of them, and they each lead a hundred fictional people.
If you still didn’t know how the bot farm in Russia works, welcome to a new world
Those still aren’t bots. Bot farms are literally a bunch of servers running computer programs. That’s not the same thing as some online sweatshop pushing disinformation manually.
The freedom of speech crowd isn't real big on the other half of the equation. Freedom of association. No one is obligated to listen to anyone else's bullshit. They're free to be butthurt about it, I'm free to not give a shit.
random_character_a@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 15:02
nextcollapse
Natural end result of social media and user tracking search engines is echo chambers.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 15:11
nextcollapse
One thing to bear in mind is that, whenever someone accustomed to one platform explores another, they’ll tend to ascribe any differences between the communities to the other platform being an echo chamber of some kind.
IMO smaller populations lead to a stronger echo chamber effect. I've definitely noticed that the echoness of Threadiverse communities is generally a lot higher than corresponding subreddits and I suspect the small size plays a major role.
garretble@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 15:29
nextcollapse
I look at it this way: I don’t let in the crazy person on the street screaming racist garbage into my house, so I also don’t have to listen to or engage with that person on the internet, either. That doesn’t make my house an “echo chamber.”
For a long time I tried to treat “internet people” with some level of “respect” so to say. That is, I didn’t spend time blocking people and whatnot. But now? Screw em. I don’t have time to listen to nonsense, so if someone tries to come in to a conversation in bad faith, it’s very easy to block and move on.
Or on short-form social media like Bsky or Masto or whatever if someone posts a racist thing. Or a bigoted thing. Block and move on.
Those trolls live off of engagement so just don’t give it to them. And those same trolls are the ones complaining about “echo chambers.” “Waaa, no one wants to listen to my racist nonsense. It’s an echo chamber!” No, you are just a trash human, and no one is obligated to listen to you.
Not anymore. Back in the day trolling was a recreational activity done for fun. Deny the fun, cut off the troll’s food. Now it’s being done for political purposes, so cutting off the fun no longer functions since it no longer strikes at the primary motivation.
garretble@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 16:51
nextcollapse
The result for the people who block them is still the same, though: they no longer see the troll garbage.
It decreases the spread. Cutting form the engagement means free people who aren’t already subscribed to that content will see it, since there’s fewer people arguing with it. Which means those who are susceptible to falling for it have less chance to even encounter it, meaning fewer fall into it.
Even if the incentive to create the trolls has changed, the counter to letting it spread hasn’t.
Depends on platform I suppose. Here, the level of activity is low enough that if you’re reading the comments, you’re usually reading all of them. In a major reddit sub that is seldom the case.
This was about bluesky/Twitter type social media. Things with reshare and follows to specific users, where someone you follow arguing with someone you don’t will expose you to the person you don’t follow.
I doubt that it can be any worse than tech companies with financial incentives doing it. Surrounding yourself with like minded people will surely cause some bubbles like that but since when is letting a targeted algorithm funneling us for ad revenue a better option?
I don’t personally think it’s a big deal and guessing that people are just upset that their obsession with mass engagement is getting shook.
For all the great enforcement problems KOSPA has, at least it incorporated Filter Bubble Transparency…
AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
on 03 Dec 17:08
nextcollapse
Nearly all social media is full of eco echo chambers… I still post and follow stuff on several of the platforms. There is very little nuanced conversation… Seems like it is more and more just an up vote or downvote storm, or people claiming one thing or another without any supporting evidence.
The person was referring to the eco typo in the original post.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Dec 23:56
nextcollapse
And that makes me genuinely sad. When I joined Lemmy, I was a little put off by the leftist bent here, but then I realized that I appreciated being challenged on my views, especially since people here are generally nice about it.
I wish I could find something like that for conservatives as well. Better yet, I wish there was a place like Reddit or Lemmy where all views were respected, provided claims are supported with evidence. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be compatible with the world we live in, and that makes me sad.
AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
on 04 Dec 00:16
nextcollapse
Seems like there aren’t many centrist communities where you can have nuanced discussions.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Dec 04:15
nextcollapse
I honestly don’t care about centrism, I care about diversity of ideas with citations for claims. If a left wing or right wing policy is the best for a given situation, I’d love to discuss it.
But failing that, I’ll take centrist over either political extreme any day of the week.
You can probably post on 7.62x54r.ru. Reddit had a decent number of anti-establishment leftists who would join up with conservatives on shared issues. I haven’t seen any spaces like that on Lemmy.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Dec 04:57
collapse
Yeah, and that’s something I missed about Reddit. I found a few good communities of centrists, open minded leftists, and open minded conservatives, so I could generally join a pretty good discussion. I still needed to watch what I said, because there were some things even open minded people wouldn’t consider given their political bias, but a lot of things were fair game.
For example, I could bring up Right to Repair to both groups, and I’d get different reasons for and against it from each group.
Here on Lemmy, I don’t get that diversity, either something is compatible with the group’s general leftist persuasion, or I get downvoted into oblivion. And that sucks, because I put in a lot of effort to be constructive and challenge the status quo. Fortunately, I usually know before making a statement which way it’ll go, and there are no downsides (aside from worse engagement) to getting down votes, so I know what to expect. It does make me sad though.
I’ll check out that community though. Not sure what to expect from a .ru domain though as an American…
Reich Wing ideology, the entire thing, relies on subservience and deference to authority. The difference in the various flavors of it are just how much and who.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Dec 14:24
collapse
OK, so you’re just going to spout partisan talking points instead of having a productive conversation.
Of course, discussing political ideology is “partisan”… Its exactly what we’re talking about.
And no, they’re not just talking points, it’s literally how we describe the various systems of political ideology… Reich Wingers look to construct a society around control and subservience. And, like I said, the question of “who” to obey, and how strictly people are to be controlled are what differentiates the various Reich Wing ideologies.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Dec 16:41
collapse
Reich Wingers look to construct a society around control and subservience.
This is a talking point, and you’re basically implying everyone on the right believes this, and that’s patently false.
That is literally what makes up right wing ideology… Prove me wrong. Because, yes, every Reich Winger thinks that some level of control over others is a requirement of society.
Control of women’s bodies.
Control of immigrants.
Control of health care.
Control of religious views.
Control of other countries.
Show me a Reich Winger who doesn’t believe that someone needs to control others, and I’ll walk that back.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Dec 17:15
collapse
First of all, I want to point out that I’m not registered Republican and haven’t voted for a Republican for any executive position for nearly two decades (last time was McCain, though I would’ve voted for Romney had I voted in 2012). Also, I have voted Republican for other positions very rarely in the last decade or so. In 2020, I voted for Biden because I thought Trump legitimately had a chance of losing my state (still carried it by ~20%), and I voted mostly Democrats for legislative seats this time around because I’m pissed at the gerrymandering my state did recently.
Not sure what you mean by that, Democrats also want to control health care, that’s why the ACA exists (they want everyone enrolled in health insurance, which gives the government more control over health care).
If you can be more precise, I can look up some statistics.
So if you’re looking for anti-interference Republicans, look no further than Trump. There are also plenty of anti-interventionist Republicans in the anti-Trump crowd as well.
So yeah, there’s a bunch of stats for you. I’m also guessing we’ll see those numbers go up quite a bit after Trump’s term is up, because a lot of those answers are likely colored by recent rhetoric.
I could list specific politicians if that’s what you’re looking for, but I find that much less interesting than statistics.
Not universal, and something like 36% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
But all of them voted to ban abortion, so they can sod off with “Well, it’s not what I believe”…
Something like 15% believe immigration should increase, and 37% believe it should stay the same. Believing immigration should decrease is a minority opinion among Republicans.
And yet, they voted to eliminate all non-white immigration. So, again, they can sod off.
Not sure what you mean by that, Democrats also want to control health care, that’s why the ACA exists (they want everyone enrolled in health insurance, which gives the government more control over health care).
The ACA regulated health insurance, not health care. Reich Wingers want health care choices controlled, while de-regulating corporations.
If you can be more precise, I can look up some statistics.
Look up the percentage that voted for Trump, and that’s your percentage of people who are Reich Wingers and want to have the state tell humans what health care they can get like:
Hormone therapy
Mental healthy care
Reproductive health care
About 41% of Republicans believe religious Republicans have too much control over the GOP, and about 27% of Republicans are unaffiliated with any particular religion, 13% are atheist, and 34% say “nothing in particular” (I guess that means areligious).
What percentage of them voted for Trump?
Because that percentage voted for a Christofascist system of government.
Trumpism is isolationist, which is the opposite of wanting to interfere w/ other countries. There are a lot of anti-Trump Republicans (in 2019, though they’re probably not going to be as vocal this term.
Trump is an isolationist. Unless it’s:
Israel
Russia
North Korea
Anywhere in the middle east with brown people living there
A place that has oil, or real estate he can profit from
So if you’re looking for anti-interference Republicans, look no further than Trump. There are also plenty of anti-interventionist Republicans in the anti-Trump crowd as well.
Sure… “Anti-interference”, unless it’s a friend of his like Putin, or Assad, etc etc.
So yeah, there’s a bunch of stats for you. I’m also guessing we’ll see those numbers go up quite a bit after Trump’s term is up, because a lot of those answers are likely colored by recent rhetoric.
Those stats are meaningless. The only stat that matters is who they voted for.
I could list specific politicians if that’s what you’re looking for, but I find that much less interesting than statistics.
Sure, find me a Reich Winger who isn’t what I described. I’m sure they will be a lot like “Trump is really anti-interference!”
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Dec 19:04
collapse
all of them voted to ban abortion
No, they voted for someone who voted for something that ended up banning abortion. There are a few steps between most people and actual policy.
they voted to eliminate all non-white immigration
Citation needed.
The ACA regulated health insurance, not health care.
And the health insurance that abides by ACA guidelines determines what forms of health care are covered.
Look up the percentage that voted for Trump
People voted for all sorts of reasons, from the letter next to his name (probably the majority) to BS ads on TV (probably a surprisingly high number) to actually thinking he’ll fix inflation (even though that’s already fixed by the fed).
Very few people who voted for Trump agree with his entire agenda, and many actively dislike him (source: my entire family, neighbors, etc). You can’t really tell someone’s policy beliefs based on who they voted for, you can only tell a general direction they’d prefer the country to go, and it seems lower taxes won this round.
Trump is an isolationist. Unless it’
Israel
Russia
North Korea
Anywhere in the middle east with brown people living there
A place that has oil, or real estate he can profit from
And how does that compare to Biden or Harris? Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine, Biden/Harris want to extend it and keep sending weapons over. Trump seems to want to end the war in Gaza, whereas Biden seems happy to keep selling weapons to Netanyahu. Biden has bombed his fair share of people in the middle east.
Trump is absolutely terrible, especially on foreign policy, but Biden has been awful as well. That said, I do support helping out Ukraine since it’s a defensive war (though I disagree w/ Biden’s authorization to use certain classes of missiles in Russia, since those require direct US involvement; at that point, we should just join the war).
The only stat that matters is who they voted for.
I completely disagree.
Sure, find me a Reich Winger who isn’t what I described
Here’s an article with a bunch of anti-Trump Republicans still in office. And that’s only explicitly confirmed ones, I’m sure there are plenty more who haven’t openly opposed Trump, but do intend on opposing some or all of Trump’s positions on those issues you listed.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Dec 05:58
collapse
Happy to see the word “nuance” being used… wish there was more of that too. This whole binary with-me / against-me mentality will bring us all crashing down.
DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world
on 03 Dec 18:43
nextcollapse
No social media site controlled by Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg is going to be a healthy experience. You will have much more varied content anywhere else.
Far right radicalization will get worse if progressives leave X. Conservatives will stick around simply because they aren’t banned and then the white supremacists will be free to start pulling them without push back.
FreeBooteR69@lemmy.ca
on 04 Dec 02:24
nextcollapse
I think having a marketplace full of alternatives helps prevent that kind of entrenchment somewhat. Here is my problem though, who decides what an echo chamber is? I like a good back and forth conversation, but hate bad faith arguments. If people talk stupid shit, how much tolerance should one reasonably expect?
Unpopular opinion: It’s time to bring back church.
No algorithms controlling you; locally based and strengthens community; a broad spectrum of rich and poor meeting and being seen; opportunities to care and be cared about on a weekly basis; opportunities to develop social skills and to really make an impact in your community based on social missions like food banks and myriad activities. Plus, you meet people not because you want to change their minds, but because they’re just there, trying to be better people. And then once in a while, good conversations turn into minds changed.
Context: I used to be Mormon and left because I no longer believed, but I now see a hell of a lot of good in church, as long as it isn’t a control freak over your life and sense of self.
Echo chambers are on par with human nature: we fear the unknown and flock to like-minded people. It takes a degree of discomfort to read something you don’t agree with (explained rationally and with civility) and trying to argument in kind - it’s easier to down-vote and here we are…
Being around too many antagonistic people is stressful.
“The impact of election stress: Is political anxiety harming your health?: Psychological science shows that politics can harm our physical and mental health, but the positive aspects of political engagement can lead to greater well-being”
“In polarized communities, they found that bonding ties, or bonds between people who are similar (in this case, politically similar), were linked with better physical and mental health (International Political Science Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, 2022). Bridging ties—connections with dissimilar people—were associated with worse overall health for people who were politically isolated.”
There’s a big difference between analyzing your enemy and letting them shout at you constantly. I can research conservative evangelicals attitudes without having to let one set up a loudspeaker next to my house.
The conservative troll types are also the ones most likely to try and argue about echo chambers because their style of rage farming doesn’t work if everyone avoids them.
threaded - newest
I’ve been on Bluesky very early on, and with the mass exodus of liberals from twitter, they are recreating their own toxic echo chambers on Bluesky now and it’s bleeding through into every post they disagree with.
I don’t know that it’ll affect the echo chamber effect; you create that through your subscriptions, and avoid it by browsing “all.” What will be impacted is the amount of simply shit content, both from idiots and from bots. Moderators’ jobs will get harder: the bots follow the people.
even if it doesn’t isn’t having more twitters bad? because it causes more places of toxicity to exist
People need to be civil. On every platform they have shown that they can’t be (or have no good reason to choose to be).
Moderation is the key, but moderation is challenging. That’s why self moderation (keeping yourself civil) is very important. Which loops us back to the beginning.
I don’t know how it could get any worse than now. Basically we’re all in echo chambers whichever platform you use. Including Lemmy.
Agreement with “consensus” of whatever bucket you’re placed into is rewarded, and disagreement is punished. Even if only by upvote/downvote. Switching platforms won’t change much.
If you stray from world, things are a bit better. World, however, hasn’t seen a ban or anti-free speech action they didn’t embrace fully. World is a cesspool of smug libs that refuse to engage with anyone they perceive to be on their left or right.
I think you’ve been in an echo chamber for too long.
yup. Lemmy.world!
I haven’t had any issues with .world. Ive had more issues with smaller instances banning people/topics. World seems like the most
blandor popular of the lemmy instances.Most of the issues I have with world are invisible because the comments are removed and the users are banned. As long as you stick with their narrative (that Trump bad and Biden/Kamala good) you won’t run afowl of them.
Cant you see everything via the modlist + API? I thought that was one of the benefits of Lemmy is that the modlist is open. I have seen people down-voted for specific comments but not banned.
Many have been banned. A leftist named linkerbaan (or to like that) was one for sure.
The discussion here shows me that linkerbaan's ban was the right decision: https://p.lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/lemmy.dbzer0.com/29384791 . Please provide receipts of actual attempted Orwellianism.
After looking at your “evidence”, I still disagree with the ban. Linkerbaan was angry at people literally preventing the truth about an actual genocide being broadcast live for all to see.
Downvote those you disagree with and walk away. Banning is for death threats and stuff like that. Calling people names like “fascist” is not abuse. It’s public discourse.
There's outright lying, this thread of what I can only describe as trolling, chanting "what about clinton's blowjob" on a post asking for people to debunk a list of bad things Reagan did, and there's a ton of calling everyone Zionists within the very thread I linked to. Such spreading of vitriol at everyone he disagrees with is definitely bannable IMO.
Calling someone a Zionist when they’re arguing AGAINST a ceasefire is ABSOLUTELY not below the belt. Zionist isn’t a slur. It’s a word used by actual Zionist’s.
Calling someone zionist is not a slur. Calling someone a bot is also not a slur. Both are thought-terminating cliches. Also, by thread, I meant including the comments as well. Plus you have the trolling.
I can agree that they’re cliches and perhaps thought terminating.
I “have the trolling”. Are you implying that I’m trolling? If I’m trolling, every single hippie in the 60’s was also trolling when they asked for peace.
<img alt="you have the poweeeer" src="https://media1.tenor.com/m/RfziBwlHkN4AAAAd/snow-frozen.gif">
haha no. i meant the examples of trolling i provided lol, not you.
Oh ok. Carry on.
It’s a valid claim, IMO. The libs leaving Twitter all seem to be VERY into Orwellian practices like “official block lists” and other absurd self-owns.
I assure you that official blocklists are a very fringe viewpoint.
So fringe that BlueSky officially lists the most blocked accounts on BLueSky IN THEIR API: vqv.app
So fringe that millions of people subscribe to them.
So fringe that over 1700 people upvoted this list on Reddit: old.reddit.com/…/and_remember_you_can_block_all_m…
Talk about blaming the victim. I’d challenge you to create an account and put that you’re trans in the profile. See how long it takes to get death threats. There is a reason for these block lists. Maybe people don’t want to get harassed every time they post something.
Also, where is the “most blocked accounts” list in that link?
That’s a great point that I honestly hadn’t considered.
That people create blocklists that become popular absolutely does not prove endorsement of a potential official blocklist. While an official, default blocklist may be Orwellian, unofficial opt-in blocklists that require searching for are not Orwellian at all. One knows they're there, one chooses to block them. Your line of reasoning leads to arguing against the block feature entirely. And what's wrong with providing transparent statistics?
All totally valid points. I just so happen to disagree with API official ban lists.
Group efforts to root out fascism or other malcontents is hardly “Orwellian”…
You can read those words, right? Who decides what is and isn’t fascism? Who decides who is the malcontents in society? See what I mean?
Fascism has a very clear definition. And who decides the malcontents? That’s also easy: Are you trying to harm people? Then you are a malcontent.
You are attempting to obfuscate the discussion here. We all know what fascism is. We also all know its wrong to hurt people.
You can barely detect your own biases! Have a great day. Continue with the fascist bullshit pretending you are ordained from some higher power.
Nothing in there contradicts what I said here… There’s not fascist about preventing fascism from taking root. You’re making the same mistake made in “On Authority”, and calling revolutions where the people cast off their chains of oppression as “Authoritarian”…
Well that's kind of baked-in to social media. If you'd otherwise talk to lots of different people in person, read much etc and now come to the internet and choose any of the mentioned platforms... That'd be bad. You're now in a smaller filter bubble. If you're already in some echo chamber and for example switch from mastodon to bluesky... that's a minor change. The situation is a bit different if you change from a nazi platform to a regular one. It's still not good. But better.
It’s like saying everyone who drinks water will die. It’s correct, but it’s not a problem.
Echo chambers exist everywhere.
The echo chamber is a good thing. For some reason, everyone thinks I’m obligated to read their opinions that disagree diametrically with mine, constantly, non-stop, from hundreds of thousands of bots working for propaganda. I don’t.
You are both right and wrong there.
You need different opinions in your life, otherwise your echo chamber will tend to move to more extremist. Pretty soon you think those "others" are evil and so you are willing for anti-democracy coups by your side, or to fight wars to kill those infidels or other evil things. You need a steady input of other opinions to remind yourself that reasonable people can disagree and that is okay.
Also sometimes you are wrong. Few people have the guts to read a well reasoned opinion and admit they are wrong, but it is one you should be willing for.
Of course there is far more possible opinions than you have time to read. So eventually you have to say I don't have time to deal with this subject and shut it out. So long as you avoid the problems of an echo chamber they are fine. Be aware of them though and make sure you are not falling into those traps anytime you shut something out.
I recognize and demand that everyone has an opinion, that everyone can speak their mind. And I have the right to have mine. And so, when all of Twitter is full of russian bots on the government payroll, there are hundreds of thousands of them, in all languages, I’m not kidding and not dramatizing. What i supposed to do about it? Read it all? Or retire to the echo chamber? I’m withdrawing, for now here, and if anything, from social media
Its becoming more clear that the only winning move is not to play. All of us should remember that twitter wasnt the best before musk either. Microblogging at such a large and worldwide scale is simply an outdated, deceptive, and abusive concept at this point. For a long time we have been fucking around and now we found out
I watched a video about this and it claims that social media has advanced and grown so much that our brains are still not used to it and we all act as if echo chambers are a bad thing when in reality its actually just how its been for our entire existence. Its how we are wired right now, atleast most of us besides Gen Alpha. Being active in a local tribe, community, city, etc. Not engaging with the entire world and thousands of people at once.
If by bots you mean computer programs or AI, they are not people and should be ignored/blocked. If you mean (as seems to be common) people with a different opinion, then you need to be more careful lest you get the faults of an echo chamber.
By bots, I mean people who are employed, go to work, and get paid just for writing comments, posts, and other texts, according to the orders from their superiors. You can call them a computer program, but what they are not is a person with a certain and different point of view. They have no point of view, they write what they are told to write, and yes, there are thousands of them, and they each lead a hundred fictional people. If you still didn’t know how the bot farm in Russia works, welcome to a new world
Those still aren’t bots. Bot farms are literally a bunch of servers running computer programs. That’s not the same thing as some online sweatshop pushing disinformation manually.
The freedom of speech crowd isn't real big on the other half of the equation. Freedom of association. No one is obligated to listen to anyone else's bullshit. They're free to be butthurt about it, I'm free to not give a shit.
Natural end result of social media and user tracking search engines is echo chambers.
One thing to bear in mind is that, whenever someone accustomed to one platform explores another, they’ll tend to ascribe any differences between the communities to the other platform being an echo chamber of some kind.
IMO smaller populations lead to a stronger echo chamber effect. I've definitely noticed that the echoness of Threadiverse communities is generally a lot higher than corresponding subreddits and I suspect the small size plays a major role.
I look at it this way: I don’t let in the crazy person on the street screaming racist garbage into my house, so I also don’t have to listen to or engage with that person on the internet, either. That doesn’t make my house an “echo chamber.”
For a long time I tried to treat “internet people” with some level of “respect” so to say. That is, I didn’t spend time blocking people and whatnot. But now? Screw em. I don’t have time to listen to nonsense, so if someone tries to come in to a conversation in bad faith, it’s very easy to block and move on.
Or on short-form social media like Bsky or Masto or whatever if someone posts a racist thing. Or a bigoted thing. Block and move on.
Those trolls live off of engagement so just don’t give it to them. And those same trolls are the ones complaining about “echo chambers.” “Waaa, no one wants to listen to my racist nonsense. It’s an echo chamber!” No, you are just a trash human, and no one is obligated to listen to you.
Not anymore. Back in the day trolling was a recreational activity done for fun. Deny the fun, cut off the troll’s food. Now it’s being done for political purposes, so cutting off the fun no longer functions since it no longer strikes at the primary motivation.
The result for the people who block them is still the same, though: they no longer see the troll garbage.
It decreases the spread. Cutting form the engagement means free people who aren’t already subscribed to that content will see it, since there’s fewer people arguing with it. Which means those who are susceptible to falling for it have less chance to even encounter it, meaning fewer fall into it.
Even if the incentive to create the trolls has changed, the counter to letting it spread hasn’t.
Depends on platform I suppose. Here, the level of activity is low enough that if you’re reading the comments, you’re usually reading all of them. In a major reddit sub that is seldom the case.
This was about bluesky/Twitter type social media. Things with reshare and follows to specific users, where someone you follow arguing with someone you don’t will expose you to the person you don’t follow.
Deplatforming works.
Groups of any kind are echo chambers. That’s why they exist.
I doubt that it can be any worse than tech companies with financial incentives doing it. Surrounding yourself with like minded people will surely cause some bubbles like that but since when is letting a targeted algorithm funneling us for ad revenue a better option? I don’t personally think it’s a big deal and guessing that people are just upset that their obsession with mass engagement is getting shook.
For all the great enforcement problems KOSPA has, at least it incorporated Filter Bubble Transparency…
Nearly all social media is full of
ecoecho chambers… I still post and follow stuff on several of the platforms. There is very little nuanced conversation… Seems like it is more and more just an up vote or downvote storm, or people claiming one thing or another without any supporting evidence.Eco chambers sound like a good thing.
Absolutely not. If for no other reason then you lose the ability to actually argue for your ideas if you’re in an echo chamber.
The person was referring to the eco typo in the original post.
And that makes me genuinely sad. When I joined Lemmy, I was a little put off by the leftist bent here, but then I realized that I appreciated being challenged on my views, especially since people here are generally nice about it.
I wish I could find something like that for conservatives as well. Better yet, I wish there was a place like Reddit or Lemmy where all views were respected, provided claims are supported with evidence. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be compatible with the world we live in, and that makes me sad.
Seems like there aren’t many centrist communities where you can have nuanced discussions.
I honestly don’t care about centrism, I care about diversity of ideas with citations for claims. If a left wing or right wing policy is the best for a given situation, I’d love to discuss it.
But failing that, I’ll take centrist over either political extreme any day of the week.
Hard to find nuance in anything the current government is doing
You can probably post on 7.62x54r.ru. Reddit had a decent number of anti-establishment leftists who would join up with conservatives on shared issues. I haven’t seen any spaces like that on Lemmy.
Yeah, and that’s something I missed about Reddit. I found a few good communities of centrists, open minded leftists, and open minded conservatives, so I could generally join a pretty good discussion. I still needed to watch what I said, because there were some things even open minded people wouldn’t consider given their political bias, but a lot of things were fair game.
For example, I could bring up Right to Repair to both groups, and I’d get different reasons for and against it from each group.
Here on Lemmy, I don’t get that diversity, either something is compatible with the group’s general leftist persuasion, or I get downvoted into oblivion. And that sucks, because I put in a lot of effort to be constructive and challenge the status quo. Fortunately, I usually know before making a statement which way it’ll go, and there are no downsides (aside from worse engagement) to getting down votes, so I know what to expect. It does make me sad though.
I’ll check out that community though. Not sure what to expect from a .ru domain though as an American…
Being a Reich Winger is incompatible with rational or thoughtful discussion.
Reich wing ideology boils down to subservience and deference to authority, not knowledge.
You seem to have a very specific definition in mind. There’s a lot more to the right wing than fascism.
Reich Wing ideology, the entire thing, relies on subservience and deference to authority. The difference in the various flavors of it are just how much and who.
OK, so you’re just going to spout partisan talking points instead of having a productive conversation.
Have a wonderful day.
Of course, discussing political ideology is “partisan”… Its exactly what we’re talking about.
And no, they’re not just talking points, it’s literally how we describe the various systems of political ideology… Reich Wingers look to construct a society around control and subservience. And, like I said, the question of “who” to obey, and how strictly people are to be controlled are what differentiates the various Reich Wing ideologies.
This is a talking point, and you’re basically implying everyone on the right believes this, and that’s patently false.
That is literally what makes up right wing ideology… Prove me wrong. Because, yes, every Reich Winger thinks that some level of control over others is a requirement of society.
Control of women’s bodies.
Control of immigrants.
Control of health care.
Control of religious views.
Control of other countries.
Show me a Reich Winger who doesn’t believe that someone needs to control others, and I’ll walk that back.
First of all, I want to point out that I’m not registered Republican and haven’t voted for a Republican for any executive position for nearly two decades (last time was McCain, though I would’ve voted for Romney had I voted in 2012). Also, I have voted Republican for other positions very rarely in the last decade or so. In 2020, I voted for Biden because I thought Trump legitimately had a chance of losing my state (still carried it by ~20%), and I voted mostly Democrats for legislative seats this time around because I’m pissed at the gerrymandering my state did recently.
With that out of the way:
Not universal, and something like 36% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Something like 15% believe immigration should increase, and 37% believe it should stay the same. Believing immigration should decrease is a minority opinion among Republicans.
Not sure what you mean by that, Democrats also want to control health care, that’s why the ACA exists (they want everyone enrolled in health insurance, which gives the government more control over health care).
If you can be more precise, I can look up some statistics.
About 41% of Republicans believe religious Republicans have too much control over the GOP, and about 27% of Republicans are unaffiliated with any particular religion, 13% are atheist, and 34% say “nothing in particular” (I guess that means areligious).
Trumpism is isolationist, which is the opposite of wanting to interfere w/ other countries. There are a lot of anti-Trump Republicans (in 2019, though they’re probably not going to be as vocal this term.
So if you’re looking for anti-interference Republicans, look no further than Trump. There are also plenty of anti-interventionist Republicans in the anti-Trump crowd as well.
So yeah, there’s a bunch of stats for you. I’m also guessing we’ll see those numbers go up quite a bit after Trump’s term is up, because a lot of those answers are likely colored by recent rhetoric.
I could list specific politicians if that’s what you’re looking for, but I find that much less interesting than statistics.
But all of them voted to ban abortion, so they can sod off with “Well, it’s not what I believe”…
And yet, they voted to eliminate all non-white immigration. So, again, they can sod off.
The ACA regulated health insurance, not health care. Reich Wingers want health care choices controlled, while de-regulating corporations.
Look up the percentage that voted for Trump, and that’s your percentage of people who are Reich Wingers and want to have the state tell humans what health care they can get like:
What percentage of them voted for Trump?
Because that percentage voted for a Christofascist system of government.
Trump is an isolationist. Unless it’s:
Sure… “Anti-interference”, unless it’s a friend of his like Putin, or Assad, etc etc.
Those stats are meaningless. The only stat that matters is who they voted for.
Sure, find me a Reich Winger who isn’t what I described. I’m sure they will be a lot like “Trump is really anti-interference!”
No, they voted for someone who voted for something that ended up banning abortion. There are a few steps between most people and actual policy.
Citation needed.
And the health insurance that abides by ACA guidelines determines what forms of health care are covered.
People voted for all sorts of reasons, from the letter next to his name (probably the majority) to BS ads on TV (probably a surprisingly high number) to actually thinking he’ll fix inflation (even though that’s already fixed by the fed).
Very few people who voted for Trump agree with his entire agenda, and many actively dislike him (source: my entire family, neighbors, etc). You can’t really tell someone’s policy beliefs based on who they voted for, you can only tell a general direction they’d prefer the country to go, and it seems lower taxes won this round.
And how does that compare to Biden or Harris? Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine, Biden/Harris want to extend it and keep sending weapons over. Trump seems to want to end the war in Gaza, whereas Biden seems happy to keep selling weapons to Netanyahu. Biden has bombed his fair share of people in the middle east.
Trump is absolutely terrible, especially on foreign policy, but Biden has been awful as well. That said, I do support helping out Ukraine since it’s a defensive war (though I disagree w/ Biden’s authorization to use certain classes of missiles in Russia, since those require direct US involvement; at that point, we should just join the war).
I completely disagree.
Here’s an article with a bunch of anti-Trump Republicans still in office. And that’s only explicitly confirmed ones, I’m sure there are plenty more who haven’t openly opposed Trump, but do intend on opposing some or all of Trump’s positions on those issues you listed.
Happy to see the word “nuance” being used… wish there was more of that too. This whole binary with-me / against-me mentality will bring us all crashing down.
No social media site controlled by Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg is going to be a healthy experience. You will have much more varied content anywhere else.
Far right radicalization will get worse if progressives leave X. Conservatives will stick around simply because they aren’t banned and then the white supremacists will be free to start pulling them without push back.
I think having a marketplace full of alternatives helps prevent that kind of entrenchment somewhat. Here is my problem though, who decides what an echo chamber is? I like a good back and forth conversation, but hate bad faith arguments. If people talk stupid shit, how much tolerance should one reasonably expect?
The problem isn’t different opinions, or even radical ones, it’s these opinions garnering more clicks and views, incentivizing them as a result.
The reddit model works well for discussions but the mod fiasco ruins everything.
Unpopular opinion: It’s time to bring back church.
No algorithms controlling you; locally based and strengthens community; a broad spectrum of rich and poor meeting and being seen; opportunities to care and be cared about on a weekly basis; opportunities to develop social skills and to really make an impact in your community based on social missions like food banks and myriad activities. Plus, you meet people not because you want to change their minds, but because they’re just there, trying to be better people. And then once in a while, good conversations turn into minds changed.
Context: I used to be Mormon and left because I no longer believed, but I now see a hell of a lot of good in church, as long as it isn’t a control freak over your life and sense of self.
Many churches have a bible that the church want’s you to believe without question. Which is known as faith. It is better to question everything.
Oh, I’ve questioned everything.
It works because you’ve got people who share a potent, vast common ground — being Christians.
You should see the Gab echo chamber, it’s absolutely horrifying.
Echo chambers are on par with human nature: we fear the unknown and flock to like-minded people. It takes a degree of discomfort to read something you don’t agree with (explained rationally and with civility) and trying to argument in kind - it’s easier to down-vote and here we are…
Being around too many antagonistic people is stressful.
“The impact of election stress: Is political anxiety harming your health?: Psychological science shows that politics can harm our physical and mental health, but the positive aspects of political engagement can lead to greater well-being”
“In polarized communities, they found that bonding ties, or bonds between people who are similar (in this case, politically similar), were linked with better physical and mental health (International Political Science Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, 2022). Bridging ties—connections with dissimilar people—were associated with worse overall health for people who were politically isolated.”
www.apa.org/monitor/…/managing-political-stress
There’s a big difference between analyzing your enemy and letting them shout at you constantly. I can research conservative evangelicals attitudes without having to let one set up a loudspeaker next to my house.
The conservative troll types are also the ones most likely to try and argue about echo chambers because their style of rage farming doesn’t work if everyone avoids them.
www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/…/676692/