[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.