[gpsx]

This is definitely a big risk to the country. The way things are going I am having trouble seeing an amicable resolution between the two sides of American politics.

I see this as a problem that is not caused by Facebook or a few other big players. And this problem would be the same with or without Trump. It is just too comfortable and easy to get into the echo chamber. It is almost like people enjoy being angry, because it makes them feel smarter. (I'll be honest, I looked at myself and that is what I saw.)

We need a popular news/information source that both sides can believe in. Maybe there could be some sort of peer review by respected liberals and conservatives?

[techdragon]

The issue is that tearing down such a "neutral source" by accusing it of being biased is one very effective way to draw attention to your views and gather followers to your opinions.

This can gradually erode the perception of neutrality and foster a slow progression by the neutral source "away from" the group that is claimed them to not be neutral.

[gpsx]

I think your comment sums up what we have seen happening in general. And it is the physics description of instability - a displacement away from equilibrium pushes the system further from equilibrium.

Is there any way to fix this other than settling at a new, far removed equilibrium point? I think there is, or at least hope there is.

[ewzimm]

One answer would be a collaboration source that was independently edited by ideologically diverse organizations and then compiled into a single publication that reflected multiple viewpoints. Of course, we have the capability to do that with any number of newsreaders, but it would probably need to be selected for balance by editors rather than readers.