[CaptainFever]

See the Fediverse for example, which prides itself on not having algorithms, and is yet the most echo-chambery and radical place I know of. People automatically filter themselves into different servers, and defederate with each other with frequency.

(Whether or not this is good or bad depends on your moral views. But I think it is obvious that "algorithms" are not really to blame.)

[_DeadFred_]

Didn't it spring up in response to those blameless "algorithms"?

[dehrmann]

It's more a product of cheaper and easier content distribution. When TV is expensive to produce, there are only three channels, and it's heavily regulated, you target your content to be broadly appealing and inoffensive. The rise of cable TV, revocation of the fairness doctrine, rise of the internet, and fall of the USSR all led to more exposure to broader views. Like GP said, whether this is good or bad depends on your view.

[CaptainFever]

This is another good point. I didn't actually intend to make this point, but I wanted to thank you for pointing this out.

I am not a sociologist, just a layman. But I feel that there seems to be two axis of communication. Mass (you don't know who you're talking to) vs targeted (you do know who you're talking to, like friends). Then, professional (you try to be unoffensive) vs casual (you have no such obligation).

Before the Internet, generally communication happened either mass-professional (e.g. TVs, newspapers, magazines) or targeted-casual (e.g. chatting with friends and family). This reduced offense, since mass channels were largely unoffensive as you said, while targeted channels knew how to avoid offense (i.e. you knew how to not offend your friends and family).

However, the Internet enabled a lot of mass-casual communication. And this created a lot of offense, because you didn't know who would read your messages (i.e. Twitter posts), while you didn't have the professional obligation to make sure it was unoffensive and easy to understand. This created a lot of misunderstandings, offense, etc., which leads to cancellations, hate mobs, etc.

Do note that once again I am not a sociologist, and there seems to be holes in this view. What about large group gatherings? Trashy magazines? Clubs? They seem to be examples of mass-casual communication too.

[CaptainFever]

You are correct, but my point was that it seems to me, that even though engagement algorithms aren't really a thing in the Fediverse, such filter bubbles still appear via self-sorting and de-federation. So yes, perhaps algorithms are to blame for filter bubbles in centralized social media, but removing algorithms doesn't remove filter bubbles, because people create it by themselves anyway.

TL;DR: Blaming the algorithm (correct or not) doesn't actually matter in the end, because filter bubbles happen with or without them.