But filter bubble (FB) and echo chamber (EC) are two different concepts. They are not synonymous. The former is passive, and you have no choice. The latter is human nature. Birds of a feather and such. It's hard to imagine human nature reversing eons of evolution.
> "..indeed, search and social media users generally appear to encounter a highly centrist media diet that is, if anything, more diverse than that of non-users..."
"Appear to encounter" is a vague. Thst aside, encounter doesn't mean you're open to those ideas. Imagine seeing something in your feed that is close to a polar opposite of your view. The majority of the time that is interpreted as "That's BS. See. I knew I was right." That is, few have the time to pause and ask "what if?" or "did I miss something?" The exposure doesn't open their mind, it backfires and pulls the blinders even more narrow. I missed where this study addresses that boomerang effect.
Who are non-users? Fox News watchers? Or Rachel Maddow devotes? That's a pretty low bar. More diversity than than isn't saying much? Also, diversity in sources isn't necessarily diversity in ideas and perspectives. Most media sources are so worried about readers/viewers and ad revenue that they dare not venture too far from the prevailing narrative. Add in cancel-culture and an endless list of triggers and the reporting deviates further and further from traditional journalisms. Yes, content is delivers, how often would it qualify as intellectual junkfood?
> "Nechushtai and Lewis reported that Google News searchers in the US were directed overwhelmingly to 'longstanding national newspapers and television networks'"
That might be true, but it's not proof that FB or EC don't exist. I don't want to get off topic but most of the major news sources suffer from mono-vision, narrative preservation, parroting "conventional wisdow", and so on. The lack of depth and breadth and the sources is and continues to be a problem.
Furthermore, getting results in a SERP does not mean there was a click-through to read. Again, "exposure" isn't necessarily leading to more diverse ideas.
> "...fragmentation of national mediaspheres..."
IDK. From multiple sources I've read that limited ownership is leading to consolidation. With what data do they make this assumption? Most seem to agree that consolidation of ownership has led to lens that zoom in and stay tightly on message, as opposed to zoom out and look for possible other insights.
---
I have to read more later. Hopefully it gets better. I'm not so sure this holds enough water for me. Yes, that's my interpretation. It will be interesting to see how this pov is treated here. Ironic?
You raise some points that were also raised by a sibling commenter, but I’ll try to reply to them. You are correct that FB and EC are different concepts that are unfortunately often used interchangeably (even in research). This stems from the fact that there was no robust definition offered when the concept was introduced. Bruns offers a definition to distinguish the concepts.
> The former is passive, and you have no choice. The latter is human nature. Birds of a feather and such.
Both concepts are closely related to the idea of homophily, the preference to connect or communicate with like-minded individuals (birds of a feather, as you say). In Bruns’ definition, echo chambers mean the preference to connect, while filter bubbles mean the preference to communicate. Both of them are, as you say, human nature at their core. The concepts go further than homophily, though, in that they also exclude individuals or information outside of the chamber or bubble.
> "Appear to encounter" is a vague.
This is from the research abstract summarising recent empirical findings. I think some critical distance is warranted.
> Thst aside, encounter doesn't mean you're open to those ideas. (…) The exposure doesn't open their mind, it backfires and pulls the blinders even more narrow. I missed where this study addresses that boomerang effect.
This effect is addressed as a “oppositional reading stance” in the section “Social and Political Relevance and Impact”.
> Again, "exposure" isn't necessarily leading to more diverse ideas.
You are correct. However, if individuals are encountering information contrary to their bubble’s or chamber’s belief, we would have to conclude that there is no FB or EC at work as it has failed to exclude this information. If the bubble or chamber was as robust as claimed by Pariser and others, this content would not have reached the individual.
> From multiple sources I've read that limited ownership is leading to consolidation.
You are referring to ownership structures. “Fragmentation of national mediaspheres” here refers to the audience, specifically the concern that the increasing number of media offers, especially with the advent of the internet, would fragment the national audience and have adverse effects on discourse and democracy.
> That might be true, but it's not proof that FB or EC don't exist.
It is not epistemologically possible to prove that these effects do not exist. There is limited evidence that they exist in specific contexts, but barely any evidence for a population-wide effect.
> "..indeed, search and social media users generally appear to encounter a highly centrist media diet that is, if anything, more diverse than that of non-users..."
"Appear to encounter" is a vague. Thst aside, encounter doesn't mean you're open to those ideas. Imagine seeing something in your feed that is close to a polar opposite of your view. The majority of the time that is interpreted as "That's BS. See. I knew I was right." That is, few have the time to pause and ask "what if?" or "did I miss something?" The exposure doesn't open their mind, it backfires and pulls the blinders even more narrow. I missed where this study addresses that boomerang effect.
Who are non-users? Fox News watchers? Or Rachel Maddow devotes? That's a pretty low bar. More diversity than than isn't saying much? Also, diversity in sources isn't necessarily diversity in ideas and perspectives. Most media sources are so worried about readers/viewers and ad revenue that they dare not venture too far from the prevailing narrative. Add in cancel-culture and an endless list of triggers and the reporting deviates further and further from traditional journalisms. Yes, content is delivers, how often would it qualify as intellectual junkfood?
> "Nechushtai and Lewis reported that Google News searchers in the US were directed overwhelmingly to 'longstanding national newspapers and television networks'"
That might be true, but it's not proof that FB or EC don't exist. I don't want to get off topic but most of the major news sources suffer from mono-vision, narrative preservation, parroting "conventional wisdow", and so on. The lack of depth and breadth and the sources is and continues to be a problem.
Furthermore, getting results in a SERP does not mean there was a click-through to read. Again, "exposure" isn't necessarily leading to more diverse ideas.
> "...fragmentation of national mediaspheres..."
IDK. From multiple sources I've read that limited ownership is leading to consolidation. With what data do they make this assumption? Most seem to agree that consolidation of ownership has led to lens that zoom in and stay tightly on message, as opposed to zoom out and look for possible other insights.
---
I have to read more later. Hopefully it gets better. I'm not so sure this holds enough water for me. Yes, that's my interpretation. It will be interesting to see how this pov is treated here. Ironic?