[carwyn]

They would be better off auto-blending articles at the other end of users' opinion spectrum into their news feeds (or comment threads) to try and burst the echo chambers.

"Here are some articles at the polar opposite to your norms."

[themagician]

You could bust the echo chambers by not tailoring content and showing popular content to everyone without telling them why it’s popular. If you saw two popular pieces of content next to each other, one from Fox News and one from CNN but with no indicators (likes, comments, etc.) it would force you to actually read the content and come to your own conclusion.

Instead we show people what they want to see with a number next to it that reinforces the popularity and legitimizes whatever it is. Part of how birtherism became a thing. You only see articles from a source you trust and you see that 100k people also approve of ever post on the topic. “Hmmm. Well, those 100,000 people must be into something!”

[emodendroket]

I think this is a much less effective way of changing minds than the genteel David Brookses of the world would like to admit.

[asgioiobuio]

I don't think that would work well at all. "The polar opposite to my norms" is stuff like Alex Jones and Breitbart. I won't learn anything from exposing myself to such idiocy. Dishonest clickbait is worthless, even if it comes from a diversity of viewpoints.

No algorithm is (yet) smart enough to judge the quality of journalism. Facebook shouldn't try.

[darkstar999]

This is exactly why we need to be broken from echo chambers. If you think the polar opposite of whatever you believe is conspiracy and idiocy, you are in an echo chamber. There is rational journalism for whatever is the opposite of your beliefs.