[DC1350]

Is there any proof that the algorithmic echo chamber is a real thing? I don’t use any social media that has algorithmic curation, but I still get the strong feeling that I’m in a bubble whenever I encounter other internet bubbles. How much is just caused by me choosing to see things I already agree with instead of a computer choosing for me?

[NoodleIncident]

Facebook has claimed to have proved the opposite; at least in terms of political preferences, their study said that you're exposed to people of the opposite party more often online than you are in real life. I'm also not aware of any proof that algorithmic echo chambers are real, as compared with peoples' behavior offline. How many times do people check out a new author at a library, rather than more books from an author they like?

[cafard]

I imagine that one could do a thorough search without finding even a handful of MAGA yard signs in Takoma Park, Maryland, or Brookline, Massachusetts. No doubt there are many towns that have voted for no Democrat since LBJ, where Biden/Harris yard signs were hard to find.

I don't use Facebook, so I can't say about that. I don't really go on-line for political discussion at all.

[Pfhreak]

Everyone is in a bubble. There's no human alive who is not in a bubble. The breadth of human social connections are too broad to not be in a bubble.

The idea that we somehow will be able to encounter a diverse range of opinions we disagree with but we are open to from people outside our tribe is asking a whole lot from both you and the outsiders.

[hunterclarke]

I actually think it's a bit of both. You select for things you like, and avoid things you don't. Then the algorithm says "I can help with that." The problem is that you can't tell it to stop even if you want it to.

Finding other sources of community and content that isn't centered around a feed is a good idea as well.

[biophysboy]

I think about this too: does the internet modify human behavior, or capitalize on it? I mean, it does both, but I think historians would lean toward the latter.

[cblconfederate]

how would you "prove" this? IMHO the algorithmic feeds of twitter and youtube are boring, or rather, surface extremely shallow and low effort content. I switch all my feeds (youtube, twitter, HN) to chronological mode now, and i think the future is the past: RSS . It forces you to follow few quality people to get good recommendations

[DC1350]

I’m not sure how you would prove it. I just feel like everyone jumps on the idea that this is a technology problem when it might be caused by something else. Maybe more people really are experiencing the world differently and they seek out relatable media? Anecdotally, I don’t feel like Canada is any more divided than before which wouldn’t make sense if the American division was caused by algorithmic curation pushing extreme beliefs. We use all the same websites.

[sleepysysadmin]

>Is there any proof that the algorithmic echo chamber is a real thing? I don’t use any social media that has algorithmic curation, but I still get the strong feeling that I’m in a bubble whenever I encounter other internet bubbles. How much is just caused by me choosing to see things I already agree with instead of a computer choosing for me?

There are multiple other factors beyond algo or yourself. 1 study I saw proving echo chambers used reddit r/history where their moderators enforce an echo chamber on purpose. They go way beyond banning viewpoints like holocaust denial. Even basic misunderstandings of non-controversial history are banned. Thus resulting in a objective echo chamber.

That same study went to look at more controversial subs and places like r/canada where moderators ban people for viewpoints they too have an objective echo chamber.

From my point of view echo chambers have been objectively proven to exist. In some cases that's the intention but ultimately echo chambers certainly exist.