[seti0Cha]

What the heck are you even talking about? I'm not running experiments, I'm trying to have a conversation. Do you or do you not believe the fediverse is ideologically homogeneous? I see people here arguing that it is, but that it is justifiably so. I don't see anyone clearly claiming it's not, but someone might. I think it is homogeneous for the very reasons you gave (i.e. people are not obliged to propagate speech they think is bad), but I'm not sure whether I think that's a good or a bad thing. If you think I'm wrong about it being ideologically homogeneous, feel free to tell me. If you want to weigh in on whether that's a good or bad thing, please do, that's why I asked the question. If you really want to challenge my epistemological standing to offer an opinion at all, well, I guess we're done here.

[kelseyfrog]

I'm saying that while believing in unfalsifiable beliefs or refusing to falsify them is certainly anyone's prerogative, I have to ask, why would anyone want to do that?

[seti0Cha]

You're cracking me up. I should stop responding, but I can't help but wonder if you'll respond with this same sort of thing even if I say random stuff. I think pumpkin ravioli is overrated. What do you say to that?

[kelseyfrog]

Sounds like a personal opinion! I believe that you think that :D

[t-3]

The fediverse is not ideologically or politically homogenous, there exist right-wing and apolitical instances, there exist instances targeted at exclusive and obscure subgroups, etc. If you never bother to look beyond the most popular instances, you obviously won't see many unpopular views.

[seti0Cha]

I think there's a terminology issue here. If the left and the right servers are never federated, then the experience will be homogeneous even if the fediverse is itself not. In other words, I probably shouldn't not have used the term homogeneous and stuck with "echo chamber". I was trying to avoid that term because of its pejorative connotations. It seems to me there is value in being exposed to what people you disagree with are saying, and there's value in not having all the drama that entails, which tends dominate all discourse. The fediverse by and large has chosen the later, no?

[t-3]

Experiencing homogeneity is a natural thing. Humans always self-segregate into groups when gathered in large numbers. I don't see anything wrong with people choosing an echo chamber if that makes them happy. It's being coerced into the echo chamber or the open forum that I disagree with.

[seti0Cha]

I more or less agree with that, but can't help but feel that a certain amount of exposure to contrary views (even though unpleasant/unwanted) is more healthy for society. It at least has the potential for defusing straw-man understandings and also keeps people realistic about where they stand with respect to the larger society in terms of beliefs and practices. I'm not sure that the Twitter model does much for that, but the longer form conversations like Facebook may.

[t-3]

Pretty much everyone gets exposure to contrary views, and they probably wouldn't seek out echo chambers for recreation if they didn't! Most people don't actually want to argue about politics when they vent on their social media, they want to engage with their friends, who probably feel similarly to them. There's no need to worry about these conversations being unbalanced any more than you worry about balance when line workers talk shit about managers and managers talk shit about employees. If people wanted balanced conversation, they would join a political debate forum rather than a social network that connects them to their real-life friends.