I’m curious if any of you still use anything other than fediverse. Since discovering it last year I’ve deleted all my non fedi social media, and it feels great!
I’m curious if any of you still use anything other than fediverse. Since discovering it last year I’ve deleted all my non fedi social media, and it feels great!
I’m thinking i need too, it seems to be a massive echo chamber on all the news and political communities.
subscribe to what you like, block what you don’t, sort by subscribed. Problem solved.
I think people forget that when they are browsing the equivalent of “all“ that they are guests in communities that others have subscribed to. It’s not their job to change for you and if you don’t like what’s going on, you can simply filter them out. That’s why we have subscriptions in the first place.
That’s even more insulated and creates a greater echo chamber
“Echo chambers” are incredibly common in our daily lives. I even really don’t get the whole “anti-echo chamber” thing. We select people to be friends we generally like and agree with. We often don’t associate with people we don’t like or disagree with. Why should social media be some totally egalitarian social exposure? That’s literally never been the case ever. We read what we want to read. We talk to who we want to talk to. I’m not going to be shamed into listening to some jerk who thinks gay people shouldn’t marry and belong in hell or whatever. I don’t want to share a beer with them, I would never invite them to dinner in my home, so why should I have to deal with them living rent free in my mind because I saw some ignorant post on social media yet again? It’s not like I don’t know homophobia exists, so I definitely don’t need their particular brand of reminder and I know I shouldn’t engage them because it’s a pointless flame war.
I have plenty of work colleagues and family I disagree with, I read sources I don’t always love. I get plenty of exposure to other ways of thinking and ideas. Do I think people can go too far and literally only surround themselves with “yes men” socially? Sure. But come on. How many of us actually spend equal time with people we both agree and disagree ideologically with?
To be perfectly frank: the “echo chamber” argument is mostly just a cudgel used by the right to obliquely say a space is too liberal for their tastes. It’s not a moral imperative and they are demanding everyone else conform better to their ideals while also saying it’s immoral to leave.
The problem with online echo chambers vs down at the pub having a beer is you can’t ban the bloke down the pub and never hear out see him again.
These online communities ban whoever doesn’t agree with them, reinforcing their ideas in their own minds. They begin to think everyone online agrees with them.
If you’re down the pub and start sprouting half the nonsense that gets said in the far left and right communities, you’re likely to get into an argument with any moderate person.
Unfortunately here everyone who doesn’t agree is removed
I have watched bars kick out people countless times and know for a fact that some will refuse service to folks who repeatedly cause issues.
As for your description of these wonderful open dialogues happening at bars, I’ve literally never seen that in my life. People don’t just walk around challenging random people to debates and begin arguing with them. People also tend to act way nastier online than they do in person.
I also feel I need to remind you that this entire comment chain started because you talked about leaving this community because you don’t like what people are saying. Perhaps you should stay out of this bizarre moral imperative to hear all opinions and let everyone have your attention?
deleted by creator
Sigh…
It does get pretty echo chambery in those communities