# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 56
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/7iworcq
Internet's Echo chambers 101
@eaplmx And the algorithms that take advantage of this human "flaw"? 😆
@eaplmx And the algorithms that take advantage of this human "flaw"? 😆
@eaplmx And the algorithms that take advantage of this human "flaw"? 😆
@eaplmx And the algorithms that take advantage of this human "flaw"? 😆
@eaplmx Please stop! There is no such thing as an echo chamber. That concept has been debunked. It was always pseudoscience, from the start.
@prologic No it's true. There's no such thing as "echo chambers" or "filter bubbles". I posted a yarn about what a few weeks ago. It's pseudoscience. People accept it because it fits their intuitions I guess, but it's just not true.
Ask yourself: where did you first hear that phrase? How did it enter your vocabulary? Did you investigate if it made any sense, or did you accept it because it made for a good story at the time?
@prologic here you go: #qryatdq . It's probably exaggerated to call it "pseudoscience", but the conclusion of both the links (the latter of which is a survey of academic literature) is that if there is an echo chamber phenomenon it affects a minority of people and is not a significant mass effect as it's sometimes made out to be.
@abucci I think saying "There is no such thing as an echo chamber" is an example of the image. Are you open to a different opinion? And obviously, to different evidence?
@abucci You can't say that it's been deboooonked, but follow it with evidence, finding that it doesn't happen as often, as people assume.
We can argue about the details, but the fact is, that on most social media recomendaitions are based on what you like, rather than providing you all opinions on what you're frequently looking at.
Most sites also show some bias in their moderation, on top of that, so people often end up on the sites, where finding opposing opinions is harder, than those they agree with.
This isn't enough to create an echo chamber in most cases, but just look around social media and see how many people are subscribed to blocklists, designed to filter out the rest, or just block those, who try to have a discussion, about specific topics.
@thecanine I've found that many disagreements start with definitions.
What's an _echo chamber_ for each one of us? (Or any polemic topic)
We are often talking about different things using the same name.
@eaplmx I assume we're using the dictionary definition:
an environment in which the same opinions are repeatedly voiced and promoted, so that people are not exposed to opposing views:
an online echo chamber;
_We need to move beyond the echo chamber of our network to understand diverse perspectives_
Even then it's not obvious, at what point something becomes an echo chamber, or rather, it's left subjective. Still I find it bizarre, arguing that it's not a thing at all.
@eaplmx Someone asserts: there is such a thing as "echo chambers". Then it is on them to produce evidence demonstrating that the phenomenon is real. It's not on me to believe it until it's disproved, for the same reason that it's not on me to believe in unicorns until someone's disproved their existence.
So yes, while I'm open to ideas, I'm not open to prejudices that have no evidence behind them just because people like to throw them around in the media or online. It's dangerous to accept prejudices, and in my opinion we should all be very skeptical of any phrase that lumps a whole bunch of people we don't really know into a group and paints them in a negative light. That's a recipe for horror. I think the burden of proof for a concept like "echo chamber" is very high. Any "evidence" I've seen for it doesn't pass muster, and the evidence *against* it, some of which I've shared, is strong. I feel it's safe and pragmatic to reject it.
@eaplmx Resorting to "tone policing" is one of the only ways you can really "lose" a dispute on the internet 😉
@abucci Is it about 'winning'? Or is it about getting closer to the truth?
@thecanine Yeah. I find that definition too broad and ambiguous (Is it _only_ the same opinions? There are _no_ opposing views, at all?). And I think that leaving a subjective metric, on when it is and is not, won't help.
How about?
> An echo chamber refers to situations in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system and insulated from rebuttal. By participating in an echo chamber, people are able to seek out information that supports their existing views diminishing opposing views, potentially resulting in an unintended exercise of confirmation bias.
> An echo chamber is an epistemic construct in which voices are actively excluded and discredited. It does not suffer from a lack of connectivity; rather it depends on the manipulation of trust by methodically denying all outside sources.
And we would need to go deeper on understanding what an epistemic construct is, but I think that's too long for a twt.
Disclaimer to my friends, and not-so-friends: I posted a comic about a controversial topic. The conversation could go on a 'memeistic' side, or extremely deep, philosophical, intellectual, and rational. Usually, I like both approaches.
I don't want to win any argument. I'm not in the mood to show "You are wrong" (something I do at work, why should I do that here?), although I'm almost always open to learning something new.
If instead of being humorous, is striking a sensitive chord, well, it wasn't targeted for you. And that's OK. If you want to hear different opinions, nice! You want to keep your beliefs, even better. What to have a clash of scientific evidence. Well, we can do that another day.
Love you gals/guys.
Disclaimer to my friends, and not-so-friends: I posted a comic about a controversial topic. The conversation could go on a 'memeistic' side, or extremely deep, philosophical, intellectual, and rational. Usually, I like both approaches.
I don't want to win any argument. I'm not in the mood to show "You are wrong" (something I do at work, why should I do that here?), although I'm almost always open to learning something new.
If instead of being humorous, is striking a sensitive chord, well, it wasn't targeted for you. And that's OK. If you want to hear different opinions, nice! You want to keep your beliefs, even better. What to have a clash of scientific evidence? Well, we can do that another day.
Love you gals/guys.
@eaplmx because I said "there is no such thing as an echo chamber", and you responded by posting a cartoon telling me to calm down. Then you asked whether I'd be open to other ideas as if I were being closed minded. Besides the fact that this is exactly how the right-wing/fascist jerks that infest the internet behave, it's dismissive and condescending. It's worth reflecting on that, in my estimation (for everyone).
Oof let's remember that textual forms of communication sometimes don't carry intent very well let alone emotion 🤗
Oof let's remember that textual forms of communication sometimes don't carry intent very well let alone emotion 🤗
Oof let's remember that textual forms of communication sometimes don't carry intent very well let alone emotion 🤗
Oof let's remember that textual forms of communication sometimes don't carry intent very well let alone emotion 🤗
Okay... So @abucci @eaplmx and @justamoment ... Here's what I know and have experienced first-hand... -- When I worked at Facebook™ (now called Meta™ but still own and operate this horrible thing called "Facebook"), we had inside information on how the company (used to be, now just a product) "operate" and "function". The core idea behind Facebook was not about connecting people together (like they claim publicly), or to produce feed Internet services (like they did over in Africa and other poorer nations) -- No sir 😅 -- The whole point of Facebook™? Simple.
> To increase engagement.
How? Simple. Powerful (lots) of algorithms ate place build huge "graphs" of information about people, relationships and interactions. Huge powerful multi-Gigawatt sized data centres used to run massive machine learning models to "learn" and "understand" every aspect of its users base (you know, the same users that believe that Facebook™ was/is FREE 🤣)
Okay... So @abucci @eaplmx and @justamoment ... Here's what I know and have experienced first-hand... -- When I worked at Facebook™ (now called Meta™ but still own and operate this horrible thing called "Facebook"), we had inside information on how the company (used to be, now just a product) "operate" and "function". The core idea behind Facebook was not about connecting people together (like they claim publicly), or to produce feed Internet services (like they did over in Africa and other poorer nations) -- No sir 😅 -- The whole point of Facebook™? Simple.
> To increase engagement.
How? Simple. Powerful (lots) of algorithms ate place build huge "graphs" of information about people, relationships and interactions. Huge powerful multi-Gigawatt sized data centres used to run massive machine learning models to "learn" and "understand" every aspect of its users base (you know, the same users that believe that Facebook™ was/is FREE 🤣)
Okay... So @abucci @eaplmx and @justamoment ... Here's what I know and have experienced first-hand... -- When I worked at Facebook™ (now called Meta™ but still own and operate this horrible thing called "Facebook"), we had inside information on how the company (used to be, now just a product) "operate" and "function". The core idea behind Facebook was not about connecting people together (like they claim publicly), or to produce feed Internet services (like they did over in Africa and other poorer nations) -- No sir 😅 -- The whole point of Facebook™? Simple.
> To increase engagement.
How? Simple. Powerful (lots) of algorithms ate place build huge "graphs" of information about people, relationships and interactions. Huge powerful multi-Gigawatt sized data centres used to run massive machine learning models to "learn" and "understand" every aspect of its users base (you know, the same users that believe that Facebook™ was/is FREE 🤣)
Okay... So @abucci @eaplmx and @justamoment ... Here's what I know and have experienced first-hand... -- When I worked at Facebook™ (now called Meta™ but still own and operate this horrible thing called "Facebook"), we had inside information on how the company (used to be, now just a product) "operate" and "function". The core idea behind Facebook was not about connecting people together (like they claim publicly), or to produce feed Internet services (like they did over in Africa and other poorer nations) -- No sir 😅 -- The whole point of Facebook™? Simple.
> To increase engagement.
How? Simple. Powerful (lots) of algorithms ate place build huge "graphs" of information about people, relationships and interactions. Huge powerful multi-Gigawatt sized data centres used to run massive machine learning models to "learn" and "understand" every aspect of its users base (you know, the same users that believe that Facebook™ was/is FREE 🤣)
That is whats I _always_ thought of as an _Echo Chamber_ -- a system designed to take advantage of human frailty, designed to entrap people and influence and shape the way they think and believe.
But maybe it _might_ be better to call this something else, a better more descriptive name for this system?
I _believe_ its called called a "Skinner's box" or what apparently Wikipedia calls a Operant conditioning chamber
🤷♂️ Just my $0.02 worth 😅
That is whats I _always_ thought of as an _Echo Chamber_ -- a system designed to take advantage of human frailty, designed to entrap people and influence and shape the way they think and believe.
But maybe it _might_ be better to call this something else, a better more descriptive name for this system?
I _believe_ its called called a "Skinner's box" or what apparently Wikipedia calls a Operant conditioning chamber
🤷♂️ Just my $0.02 worth 😅
That is whats I _always_ thought of as an _Echo Chamber_ -- a system designed to take advantage of human frailty, designed to entrap people and influence and shape the way they think and believe.
But maybe it _might_ be better to call this something else, a better more descriptive name for this system?
I _believe_ its called called a "Skinner's box" or what apparently Wikipedia calls a Operant conditioning chamber
🤷♂️ Just my $0.02 worth 😅
That is whats I _always_ thought of as an _Echo Chamber_ -- a system designed to take advantage of human frailty, designed to entrap people and influence and shape the way they think and believe.
But maybe it _might_ be better to call this something else, a better more descriptive name for this system?
I _believe_ its called called a "Skinner's box" or what apparently Wikipedia calls a Operant conditioning chamber
🤷♂️ Just my $0.02 worth 😅
I personally prefer to avoid sharing my view on certain topics, not because I'm better than others, but because I often notice my opinion on the matter is different and what I might say could change my relationship (friends, family, etc.) with the other party, maybe all without any gained value on mine or their side.
As for my opinion on the topic of echo chambers, what I and others can do to share their point of view without hurting others in a discussion is to also tell your personal experience on the matter, if you add context to why your own statement is "correct" to you (not to be confused with "right" or "truth"), than the other party can interpret the reasoning behind it and come to understand the "gap" in opinions on the same subject.
I often try to start topics by sharing my life experience on the matter which allows others to add to the table rather than fight each other. 🤗
@prologic Thanks for the insight 😊 on Meta/Facebook, that's exactly what I'm thinking when sharing your view to others.
@justamoment No worries 🤗 -- But I should point out that @abucci _might_ be right and that this is called something else entirely and not an "echo chamber" 😆
@justamoment No worries 🤗 -- But I should point out that @abucci _might_ be right and that this is called something else entirely and not an "echo chamber" 😆
@justamoment No worries 🤗 -- But I should point out that @abucci _might_ be right and that this is called something else entirely and not an "echo chamber" 😆
@justamoment No worries 🤗 -- But I should point out that @abucci _might_ be right and that this is called something else entirely and not an "echo chamber" 😆
@prologic whoops... 🤭
Well, echo chambers are fun to sing duets with yourself. 🎺 🕺🕺 🎻
@prologic One reason I keep insisting on this point is that I don't get the impression that the folks opining about echo chambers actually read the research I posted. I'm not disputing that people *try* to create echo chambers, that creating such a thing is valuable to some, nor that they might succeed at times and with some people. All I'm doing is following what the research I've read argues, and has *accumulated evidence for* (importantly), which is:
1. Echo chambers are not widespread. Only a minority of people are affected
2. The phrase "echo chamber" itself is an example *of the very phenomenon you're trying to critique by using that term*. People who want to believe there are echo chambers are stuck reinforcing that term with one another because they are not considering counterfactuals
To quote:
> Using a nationally representative survey of adult internet users in the United Kingdom (N = 2000), we find that those who are interested in politics and those with diverse media diets tend to avoid echo chambers.
2000-ish people is a good sample size. "Diverse media diet" is fairly broad; it mostly means consulting more than one or two sources. The paper defines what they mean by these terms (including echo chamber).
> A deep dive into the academic literature tells us that the “echo chambers” narrative captures, at most, the experience of a minority of the public. Indeed, this claim itself has ironically been amplified and distorted in a kind of echo chamber effect.
That is, "echo chamber" is the result of people in echo chambers about echo chambers! It's maddeningly circular and meta!
The cure to such things is simple: a diverse diet of information. I'm trying to help promote that diverse diet by providing information that contradicts the prevailing "wisdom" about "echo chambers". It's being rejected, or at least not taken seriously enough to read and incorporate. I think that's a fair assessment on my part, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to be frustrated about it.
@abucci I see... This is quite interesting then 👌 My experiences at Facebook™ are arguably called something entirely different (said I said). -- One thing that strikes me in reading this stuff is "diverse media diet" and "consulting more than one source". -- I can tell you without a doubt, having access to a diverse media or access to different sources of information in Australia especially is becoming increasingly more and more difficult as the media is almost entirely owned and operated by Rupert Murdock's media empire. -- We have the ABC as the only remaining independent media source and has been receiving fewer and fewer funds over the years to the point where its barely functional 😢 -- Or so I am lead to believe / Or so I am told 🤣
@abucci I see... This is quite interesting then 👌 My experiences at Facebook™ are arguably called something entirely different (said I said). -- One thing that strikes me in reading this stuff is "diverse media diet" and "consulting more than one source". -- I can tell you without a doubt, having access to a diverse media or access to different sources of information in Australia especially is becoming increasingly more and more difficult as the media is almost entirely owned and operated by Rupert Murdock's media empire. -- We have the ABC as the only remaining independent media source and has been receiving fewer and fewer funds over the years to the point where its barely functional 😢 -- Or so I am lead to believe / Or so I am told 🤣
@abucci I see... This is quite interesting then 👌 My experiences at Facebook™ are arguably called something entirely different (said I said). -- One thing that strikes me in reading this stuff is "diverse media diet" and "consulting more than one source". -- I can tell you without a doubt, having access to a diverse media or access to different sources of information in Australia especially is becoming increasingly more and more difficult as the media is almost entirely owned and operated by Rupert Murdock's media empire. -- We have the ABC as the only remaining independent media source and has been receiving fewer and fewer funds over the years to the point where its barely functional 😢 -- Or so I am lead to believe / Or so I am told 🤣
@abucci I see... This is quite interesting then 👌 My experiences at Facebook™ are arguably called something entirely different (said I said). -- One thing that strikes me in reading this stuff is "diverse media diet" and "consulting more than one source". -- I can tell you without a doubt, having access to a diverse media or access to different sources of information in Australia especially is becoming increasingly more and more difficult as the media is almost entirely owned and operated by Rupert Murdock's media empire. -- We have the ABC as the only remaining independent media source and has been receiving fewer and fewer funds over the years to the point where its barely functional 😢 -- Or so I am lead to believe / Or so I am told 🤣
@prologic yeah, it's tough in the US too. I don't know enough about who owns what to really say what's going on, but my feeling is that most of what is considered "mainstream news" here is little more than propaganda these days. It's getting harder to find diverse sources, and I'm worried that what's happening at twitter will make it even harder (which the pessimist in me thinks was part of the plan all along).
for all the things wrong with twitter, I've found it to be a great source of information, and a sort of "source of sources" where you could find people worth paying attention to off twitter.
@abucci Well... All I can say is, that's what been great about this Yarn. It turns out its a rather interesting topic of conversation with such diverse views, opinions and sources of information. It's really made me rethink thinks a bit 👌
@abucci Well... All I can say is, that's what been great about this Yarn. It turns out its a rather interesting topic of conversation with such diverse views, opinions and sources of information. It's really made me rethink thinks a bit 👌
@abucci Well... All I can say is, that's what been great about this Yarn. It turns out its a rather interesting topic of conversation with such diverse views, opinions and sources of information. It's really made me rethink thinks a bit 👌
@abucci Well... All I can say is, that's what been great about this Yarn. It turns out its a rather interesting topic of conversation with such diverse views, opinions and sources of information. It's really made me rethink thinks a bit 👌
