Escaping the echo chambers of the post-Covid online world

And so, is it possible that these online spaces, that were supposed to be useful social tools, have become our masters? Are we being led by their algorithms, which define what we see and hear, or are we just willingly consuming what's on offer without questioning it?

Public opinion is fluid and ever-shifting. It creates pressure that isn't immediately visible, like the wind. And yet, it does carry consequences and makes a large impact.

That is often evident through its ability to dominate and change the familiar and peaceful status quo. Emotions raised can soon build into an unconscious or unorganised consensus.

Online opinion formers

Online debate and interactions have a significant ability to shape public opinion. They have the power to draw people in and lead them to adopt certain opinions or positions through convincing words or emotional appeal, aided by the fluidity of the context in which they are formed and their ease of availability.

Social media echo chambers are an example of this, which occur when a self-selecting group centred around one flavour of opinion creates the false impression of consensus on issues that are actually complex and controversial.

Echo chambers are similar to the concept of neo-tribalism, in which groups of people come together to amplify their pre-existing beliefs by repeatedly being exposed to and interacting within an isolated and closed system.

Their name reflects what happens when one opinion is repeated by others and opinions are circulated among participants at lightning speed and so convincingly that bias is produced.

Echo chambers can escalate into social and political extremism, promoting and imposing certain ideologies while making alternative voices harder to hear.

Certainly, the internet has helped diversify the information we can access and create a more welcoming space for plurality in public discussions. However, much greater access to information can encourage selectivity in people, who choose channels that support their existing ideas rather than widening their perspective.

Fake news in a post-truth world

People in these echo chambers – on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and the like – develop a deeper confidence that their opinions are more accepted and acceptable than alternative ideas.

But, in effect, the chambers provide limited information to the people in them, hearing the echo of their pre-existing ideas. People who become drawn in, or as in some cases, are actively recruited to them, fall victim to what amounts to disinformation.

We are living in the post-truth age of fake news, facilitated in part by these limited networks that isolate or divide social thinking and promote their opinion regardless of the facts.

Social theory has a different name for echo chambers – epistemic bubbles. The term was coined by online activist Eli Pariser to describe a state of intellectual isolation created by algorithms which selectively and often deliberately serve up content designed to pander to a user's existing preferences defined by their search history and web use.

This alienates people from ideas that do not already fit their views. It leaves them isolated in these cultural or ideological bubbles.

Birds of a feather surf the web together

As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. People tend to connect and interact with others who are like them. A recent study conducted found that over 10 million Facebook users reported their political affiliation as liberal, moderate, or conservative and that most of their friends shared a similar political position as them.

The way this algorithmic deployment limits perspective has dangers beyond making it easier for extremists to find each other online.

The collapse of healthy debate online also affects intellectuals and authors who are considered to be the elite offline, restricting their audience and leaving them with limited reach to only like-minded people, turning these thinkers into mere followers.

When users are unaware of the role they play, regulators are needed.

Legislators must conduct thorough research and identify recommendations to promote general awareness of the dangers on a social level. We need to shed light on these practices, in order to understand them and handle them objectively, instead of just blaming new media.

Such recommendations could help prevent future harm, or at least limit it. Deeper knowledge of the risks could help transform our interconnected society into one that functions better, going beyond the echo chamber to open better and broader access to the ideas and opinions of others.