nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Am I trapped in an echo chamber?

LeinsterDub

Help! A thought has occurred to me that I've become tapped in an echo chamber. I've found myself recently just skipping over the posts of certain posters I know to hold a position which I disagree with and just reading others rebuttal of said posters.

I've noticed this particularly on Brexit and Trump but also other threads.

Is this just a natural thing to do?

I've noticed Google is less than helpful with maintaining a broad horizon too. Google and YouTube are self fulfilling feedback loops. You Google 'brexit disagreements' so it shows you more 'brexit disagreements' in Google now. You watch the US late night comedians who are anti Trump so you see more of these videos.

Are there shades of grey I'm missing on Trump and brexit?

I've always thought nothing is black and white but for these issues and a few other I'm firmly pro or against.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

recedite

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I've found myself recently just skipping over the posts of certain posters I know to hold a position which I disagree with and just reading others rebuttal of said posters..

... I'm firmly pro or against.

You created your own echo chamber.

LionelNashe

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Help! A thought has occurred to me that I've become tapped in an echo chamber. I've found myself recently just skipping over the posts of certain posters I know to hold a position which I disagree with and just reading others rebuttal of said posters.

I've noticed this particularly on Brexit and Trump but also other threads.

Is this just a natural thing to do?

I've noticed Google is less than helpful with maintaining a broad horizon too. Google and YouTube are self fulfilling feedback loops. You Google 'brexit disagreements' so it shows you more 'brexit disagreements' in Google now. You watch the US late night comedians who are anti Trump so you see more of these videos.

Are there shades of grey I'm missing on Trump and brexit?

I've always thought nothing is black and white but for these issues and a few other I'm firmly pro or against.

Has anyone else experienced this?

I have a sizeable 'ignore list' on Boards. It blocks the posts of the people I don't want to see. I still usually click on the link to view the post anyway, but the 'ignore list' for me is basically a list of people who it would be a waste of time to discuss or argue with, based on how they made their point in interactions I've witnessed.

I'm all for seeing both sides of an argument and weighing one side against the other, and taking a position, but people who think that there is just one side to an issue really annoy me.

The other approach I take sometimes is to write a reply to somebody I really disagree with, and then just before I post it, I delete it. It's therapeutic.

Den14

The various types of media that you mention mostly take a liberal viewpoint rather than a conservative one imo. So to begin with most people will follow that line and will only get more info that takes that stance. The fact that you are suggesting about an echo chamber says that you suspect that you are only getting one side of the story and you are probably right. Most people just take whatever news is presented to them as fact as they have no time or they are really just not that interested to find out if there is another angle.

Manach

As discussion sites go, Boards has a somewhat better balance perspective in the politic posts. At the least the OP has to an option to see the arguments and counters flow instead of other say in internet niches. There the cherrypicked example or strawman position are the main staples, with the main purpose is to confirm to the in-group preferences.

steddyeddy

LionelNashe wrote: »

I have a sizeable 'ignore list' on Boards. It blocks the posts of the people I don't want to see. I still usually click on the link to view the post anyway, but the 'ignore list' for me is basically a list of people who it would be a waste of time to discuss or argue with, based on how they made their point in interactions I've witnessed.

I'm all for seeing both sides of an argument and weighing one side against the other, and taking a position, but people who think that there is just one side to an issue really annoy me.

The other approach I take sometimes is to write a reply to somebody I really disagree with, and then just before I post it, I delete it. It's therapeutic.

In other words you've created an echo chamber.

LeinsterDub

recedite wrote: »

You created your own echo chamber.

I'm aware of that I suppose.

The question is what to do about it. I use to read several newspapers for balance but the Irish Times and the Telegraph are behind pay walls now.

Are somethings just just for lack of a better word 'not good'. For example the only really pro brexit papers are the express and Sun both rags.

steddyeddy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm aware of that I suppose.

The question is what to do about it. I use to read several newspapers for balance but the Irish Times and the Telegraph are behind pay walls now.

Are somethings just just for lack of a better word 'not good'. For example the only really pro brexit papers are the express and Sun both rags.

I would suggest the Telegraph, also a rag is also pro-Brexit.

LeinsterDub

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would suggest the Telegraph, also a rag is also pro-Brexit.

I actually thought the Telegraph was ok once you kept in mind it's a right of centre paper. Unfortunately it's behind a pay wall now.

Would it be worth setting up a sticky or a thread with a list of papers/blogs/sites/YouTube channels of quality and their generally accept position?

Rjd2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I actually thought the Telegraph was ok once you kept in mind it's a right of centre paper. Unfortunately it's behind a pay wall now.

Would it be worth setting up a sticky or a thread with a list of papers/blogs/sites/YouTube channels of quality and their generally accept position?

Telegraph isn't much worse than The Guardian, both have their own agenda's and know there base.

There was an article in the spectator recently that made the point that the better right leaning writing for the most part is hidden behind paywalls, while you can read plenty of stuff from the left from pretty good publications for free.

https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/891556871097790465

A lot of younger people who know no better are only been exposed to trash like The Sun, Mail, Express, Breitbart etc who often are more concerned about pissing off left wingers rather than writing anything of substance.

E.G Someone like Katie Hopkins etc.

The Guardian does have click bait stuff as does plenty left wing sites, but ignoring that you still get plenty of substance.

KyussBeeshop

Manach wrote: »

As discussion sites go, Boards has a somewhat better balance perspective in the politic posts. At the least the OP has to an option to see the arguments and counters flow instead of other say in internet niches. There the cherrypicked example or strawman position are the main staples, with the main purpose is to confirm to the in-group preferences.

I'm not sure if I'd agree there - though that used to be more the case years ago - the problem on Boards often is unchecked straw-men and similar deceptive argument types.

Past round 1 or 2 of the argument/counterargument cycle, it just gets old and becomes a permanent obstruction to discussion - and the longer it goes on, the more likely mod intervention is (especially now - there's a big tendency leaning towards shutting down discussion compared to years ago) - and so it leads to a number of 'sacred cow' type topics, where people are likely to get particularly ideologically offended, becoming pretty much impossible to discuss if one group is a small enough minority, due to the predictable reaction it will generate.

The site doesn't really do open discussion. You have to stay away from the more ideologically sensitive topics, that lead to an impasse and fast downhill turn in discussion, if you are a minority - or otherwise don't have enough people to lend credibility to a view.

So yes, while the site isn't an echo chamber, the way the site and community works, does lead to a significant limitation in both discussion, and the diversity + quality of discussion - it's not as good a resource as it was before, and it always had some degree of limitation based on the above, even when it wasn't as bad.

Chips Lovell

I think if you want to read decent news now, you have to pay for it. The only paper I'd read regularly that isn't behind a paywall is the Guardian and I think it's only a matter of time before it does because of how heavily it's pushing "voluntary" subscriptions.

LeinsterDub

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think if you want to read decent news now, you have to pay for it. The only paper I'd read regularly that isn't behind a paywall is the Guardian and I think it's only a matter of time before it does because of how heavily it's pushing "voluntary" subscriptions.

Are you paying a subscription for a publication you actively disagree with?

steddyeddy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I actually thought the Telegraph was ok once you kept in mind it's a right of centre paper. Unfortunately it's behind a pay wall now.

Would it be worth setting up a sticky or a thread with a list of papers/blogs/sites/YouTube channels of quality and their generally accept position?

Good idea. You'll get a range of opinions as the day is long.

donegal_man

I used to read the Guardian and the Telegraph to get a balanced set of opinions. However as an earlier poster said the Telegraph is now behind a paywall which makes it more difficult to access both points of view. I do check out the Express every so often just to read the comments section which is possibly the funniest / scariest I've seen in a main stream publication.

LeinsterDub

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good idea. You'll get a range of opinions as the day is long.

A range of opinions is what I'm currently seeking. As along as they are reliable

Spudmonkey

I normally read a few different papers and try to pick the one with the most objective "these are the facts" reports. Sometimes I'll go to the rag papers as well just to see what they say.

With respect to boards there are certain posters whose posts I'll always read as I know they'll normally give an objective view of what they see. They normally sit on either side of a debate and sometimes they swing me back from a direction I may have been leaning towards. They are normally fairly heavily thanked as well so a lot of others find them useful as well. I find it very easy to get stuck in a rut where you only read the posts that agree with what you already believe. Sometimes it's annoying to realise a position you've held is wrong if only to yourself.

Bob24

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Help! A thought has occurred to me that I've become tapped in an echo chamber. I've found myself recently just skipping over the posts of certain posters I know to hold a position which I disagree with and just reading others rebuttal of said posters.

I've noticed this particularly on Brexit and Trump but also other threads.

Is this just a natural thing to do?

I've noticed Google is less than helpful with maintaining a broad horizon too. Google and YouTube are self fulfilling feedback loops. You Google 'brexit disagreements' so it shows you more 'brexit disagreements' in Google now. You watch the US late night comedians who are anti Trump so you see more of these videos.

Are there shades of grey I'm missing on Trump and brexit?

I've always thought nothing is black and white but for these issues and a few other I'm firmly pro or against.

Has anyone else experienced this?

You probably know it already but just asking those questions is you first step out of the chamber.

It's not that easy though, especially with boards and YouTube:
- on boards you're right there is a potential problem with what you are doing. But on the other hand there are truely useless posts which are a waste of time and not everything you read is equally intellectually valid - so ignoring some posters is not necessarily being close minded. It's really up to you to understand different political views and which posters are good representatives of each view - which requires some homework and experience from your part.
- on YouTube I pretty much get the same thing as you. It's actually a problem with every automatic recommendation plaform and not only related to politics: an automatic music recommendation platform will keep throwing at you music which is similar to what you've been listening to so it will never broaden your musical horizons. The two possible answers are to try to do research and broaden your horizon by yourself (*very* time consuming) or to rely on human curation (i.e. find people which have cross ideological views or several people who each represent a view, and follow what they recommend ... but then you have to trust their judgement to be pertinent).

Lastly I would say that while boards and the likes are a good place to see the final output of various ideologies, I personally get to understand them and where they are coming from by reading the press, especially columnist who don't pretend to be unbiased (as many journalists do while they aren't) and unapologetically explain the way they think or analyse/dispute rival ideologies in a straight forward manner. Start reading op-ed from ideological/political figures from a mix of liberal and conservative papers and you'll be much better equipped to process what you read online.

My 2 cents anyway ...

Edit: ah and yeah ... as mentioned earlier in the thread very often you have to pay for good quality content. Even publications which have a free website will often keep some of their best content for paying readers (which makes perfect business sense as they need to increase their subscriber base). I personally have a digital subscription to what I consider a high quality conservative paper and a high quality liberal magazine. Costs me a bit over 20 euros per month but have been doing that for some time and it really helped me understand a lot of things better so I think it's more than worth it (also I think most publications have some tolerance for sharing a digital subscription amongst a few people within a family/household so if someone else is interested it's actually pretty cheap).
Also in my view audio-visual media in Europe have a pretty strong overall liberal left bias, so I wouldn't rely on watching TV to get a balanced ideological view (again I am only talking for Europe here, I am not as familiar with the situation in other parts of the world).

solodeogloria

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Help! A thought has occurred to me that I've become tapped in an echo chamber. I've found myself recently just skipping over the posts of certain posters I know to hold a position which I disagree with and just reading others rebuttal of said posters.

I've noticed this particularly on Brexit and Trump but also other threads.

Is this just a natural thing to do?

Good morning!

You could just read and engage with the arguments that are presented. I manage to do this with some of the most ardent pro-EU supporters on the Brexit thread, despite the fact that I disagree with their views. It's good to be exposed to those with whom you disagree. The idea that many have Britain is going to hell in a hand basket or indeed the view that some people would be happy for Britain to go to hell in a hand basket for a bit of schadenfreude seems highly irrational to me but it's worth engaging with and providing a different perspective.

I think I serve a good role on that thread as someone who has changed my mind on the Brexit debate since the referendum, and as someone who can see a potential positive outcome from the negotiations.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Bob24

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I normally read a few different papers and try to pick the one with the most objective "these are the facts" reports.

I would personally be careful about that.

"just the facts" is not necessarily objective as you can always pick which facts you decide to present and how you present them.

I personally theorise this as a "part-truth" world which lead to the infamous "post-truth" one being talked about in the US.

Many reputable media there had been consistently presenting a vision of society which while being fact-based was only looking at at part of the facts and was completely at odds with the daily experience of a large share of the population. So to that share of the population this type of reporting definitely looked biased and untrustworthy, and sometimes facts started to become irrelevant as long as someone was saying something which matched their daily life more closely and talked about their concerns.

Mind you, I am not sayings facts don't matter. Of course any argumentation which is based on made-up facts is completely invalid, and the answer to someone who is only looking at half the facts is not to look at no facts at all. But every journalist has a bias and the "only the facts" argument is most of the time a way to disguise ideological bias into an unquestionable truth, which does have a long term negative effect on public trust in the media (in many Western countries journalists have become one of the least trusted professions which should be very worrying given their role in society).

red ears

I ignore certain people who never give an inch in debates. They quite clearly only ever post things that strengthen their argument and ignore anything counter to it.

I have stopped reading the entire Trump thread as its the same 5 people going over the same old ground, out there fishing for anything they can possibly find that can paint him in a bad light whether true or not.

Mind you it was the same with the public sector vs private sector debates back about 5 or 10 years ago. Nobody gave an inch. It shows how hard it is to change peoples minds on something.

Chips Lovell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Are you paying a subscription for a publication you actively disagree with?

No. But in some ways I don't really understand the question because neither am I paying for any publication I'd 100% agree with.

Den14

red ears wrote:

I ignore certain people who never give an inch in debates. They quite clearly only ever post things that strengthen their argument and ignore anything counter to it.

red ears wrote:

I have stopped reading the entire Trump thread as its the same 5 people going over the same old ground, out there fishing for anything they can possibly find that can paint him in a bad light whether true or not.

red ears wrote:

Mind you it was the same with the public sector vs private sector debates back about 5 or 10 years ago. Nobody gave an inch. It shows how hard it is to change peoples minds on something.

This 100% agree

LeinsterDub

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

No. But in some ways I don't really understand the question because neither am I paying for any publication I'd 100% agree with.

If you're only paying for subscriptions you like/agree with that's an echo chamber

Bob24

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If you're only paying for subscriptions you like/agree with that's an echo chamber

I'm not sure that's what the poster said.

To me the post reads like they neither 100% agree not 100% disagree with the publications they subscribe to. Which means there could be some they mostly agree with and others they mostly disagree with.

johnnyskeleton

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If you're only paying for subscriptions you like/agree with that's an echo chamber

Mod note:

Im glad we've clarified that and we now know how to avoid echo chambers. Any further discussion is probably better suited to the new feedback place.

mahamageehad

I've been using the Inkl app for a while now and I find it helpful.
It pulls from a variety of sources, from Bloomberg to Financial Times to Washington Post to New York Times to Indo. You can pick and choose which sources you want to see. They have a pay per article version for about 10c an article, or a subscription version. I used to have a NYT subscription, but I've since cancelled that.

Manach

Not trying to go around Mod note on subscriptions, but might I suggest instead subscribing to a magazine service like Readly. There are a fair few current affairs and political magazines on it, and they range across the ideological & international spectrum. Hence a fairly non-partisan choice.

Manic Moran

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Help! A thought has occurred to me that I've become tapped in an echo chamber. I've found myself recently just skipping over the posts of certain posters I know to hold a position which I disagree with and just reading others rebuttal of said posters.

I've noticed this particularly on Brexit and Trump but also other threads.

Is this just a natural thing to do?

I've noticed Google is less than helpful with maintaining a broad horizon too. Google and YouTube are self fulfilling feedback loops. You Google 'brexit disagreements' so it shows you more 'brexit disagreements' in Google now. You watch the US late night comedians who are anti Trump so you see more of these videos.

Are there shades of grey I'm missing on Trump and brexit?

I've always thought nothing is black and white but for these issues and a few other I'm firmly pro or against.

Has anyone else experienced this?

You only have so much time in the day. If the poster you are skipping over has a reputation for not providing coherent argument and instead just goes off the rails, you are not losing out by not reading it. However, sometimes posters in the minority position do make cogent argument. May not change your mind, but may provide another perspective to understand that the difference is only one of opinion and priority.