[Splognosticus]

I sorta get it, from the standpoint of just allowing folks to speak their mind without repercussions. Unfortunately in practice that invariably drifts to being somewhere that the worst dregs of society congregate because they aren't welcome anywhere else, and then, well, your site becomes the cesspool that Parler was. :\

[ConceptJunkie]

It seems there are only endpoints: an echo chamber or a cesspool. All the "mainstream" social media sites are converging on the former.

What can you do if you don't want an echo chamber?

[jfengel]

I believe the "echo chamber" concept is overrated. It's really not difficult to go out and find somebody representing the other side of an argument. You can construct yourself an echo chamber if you want, but you don't automatically get one.

The narrative that reasonable points of view are being censored out of existence is part of a narrative constructed to leverage the right-wing persecution complex. There are plenty of right wingers all over social media; it's chock full of them. But that persecution complex has turned into violence, and that complex is perfectly positioned to pretend that trying to stem violence is censorship. (They didn't seem to mind when it was being used to fight anti-American terrorism.)

If you don't want an echo chamber, don't make one. Seek out sensible people with different points of view, which is no harder than taking up an interest in ballet dancing or Malaysian cuisine. They weren't being excluded from your non-ballet-mee-goreng-free circle.

You're not required to give equal time to conspiracy theorists -- and there do exist non-conspiracy-theorist right wingers to talk to, if that's what you want. Social media isn't banning them. The ones who are being banned are using that language to pretend that there's a different reason.