Asklemmy

"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.