Living in an age where almost everything has gone digital, this environment is the best place for people to unite and share knowledge. But this interconnectivity has led to the “echo chamber.” What was once a signifier referring to environments that boosted certain sounds greatly, has become a powerful and important signifier for exposing how viewpoints, beliefs, and ideologies are echoed and guarded in and through the digital age. Self-sustaining echo chambers are not just of great importance at the societal level in general and in how individuals think at the present, but also in how the world is run politically.

Echo chambers polarize discussions by isolating individuals in ideological bubbles, hindering effective communication and understanding.

An echo chamber, in the most basic sense, describes a closed indoctrination system in which people are mostly fed with information that they already believe in. In such settings, non-conformist opinion is excluded, which draws a very distorted picture of reality. Alas, this is not original – in human history, people always tended to join communities and ideologies close to their convictions – but in the age of social and algorithmic media, it has become much more massive.

Of all the algorithms implemented in social media, those are especially to blame for the creation of digital echo chambers. As is intended to keep the user interested, these algorithms operate using previous user interactions. In so doing, they unconsciously herald what is already familiar to them and personally relevant to their existence.

Consequently, people are isolated from different perspectives, which promotes a cycle of affirmation. For instance, a user who surfs sites with mainly politically conservative material will only find more such material; the opposing, liberal content will be excluded.

For people, security arises from the predictable responses in echo chambers. People possess another psychological inclination—but this one is much darker: confirmation bias means that people actively search for new information that would confirm what they already think is true while ignoring the information that denies it. Bias feeds on this, and echo chambers help to create a scenario that feels secure and familiar. To this effect, people look into such corners in order to gain a feeling of being at home and the pleasure that results from being part of like-minded mutual comrades.

However, there is just too much information in the information age, and that alone makes echo chambers even more appealing. Due to the large amount of information available, this causes the audience to seek out Manichean and easily digestible content and sources. Such selective sources of information naturally entail less effort being used to evaluate the content accessible, making echo chambers not just a comfortable but an attractive choice in the highly intricate environment of information.

Algorithms fuel echo chambers by reinforcing users’ existing beliefs and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives.

It is, therefore, worrying to have echo chambers, although they may provide comfort to those in them. They mention one of the most important effects as polarization of the discussion. By putting people in ideological bubbles that easily exclude information from people with the other side of the political spectrum, echo chambers further polarize people, making effective communication impossible. This polarization is well evidenced in political issues where parties get locked in specific beliefs holding the other side as dangerous to their existence.

Further, echo chambers lead to the spread of fake news. In closed groups of people, misinformation can circulate freely; it gains legitimacy because it is repeated repeatedly. The absence of cross-linking allows lies to grow and inspire conspiracy theories while diminishing the credibility of authoritative sources. For instance, the current trends of anti-vaccine advocates and climate change denialism are partly due to echo chambers that promote such views.

The psychological effect of echo chambers is also disturbing. The problem with having constant access to only one right way is that the mind becomes dull over time, and this capacity for critical thinking vastly reduces. Facebook users are less likely to reevaluate their beliefs and less empathetic to others, creating a sort of “us vs. them” mentality.

Echo chambers do not merely confine themselves to individual actions but control major world events and social relations. In geopolitics, a primary way these echo chambers have contributed to populism is that leaders use them to mobilize supporters and silence the opposition. They also participate in the state-sponsored spreading of extremism, where radical opinions gain power in concealed communities on the Internet.

In addition, echo chambers have an economic aspect — they influence the aforesaid phenomena. Modern advertisement and branding are also stretched by the same technologies that fashion echoes for consumers – companies simply target the population in their way. Although this strategy can be productive, it has questionable ethical implications that continue the manipulation of the consumer and negation of the rational choice.

The spread of fake news and conspiracy theories is amplified within echo chambers due to the absence of cross-linking and external scrutiny.

The idea of combating echo chambers presents several approaches that should be taken. As the media is concerned, media literacy is significant at the personal level. Power over biases can thus be achieved by attaining appropriate knowledge and by promoting rational assessment of materials among people knowing how to avoid biases in their media environments. Developing a willingness to look outside one’s echo chamber, or to desire to engage with information that you may not personally agree with is a very valuable first step.

At the institutional level, there is more onus for technology companies to undertake. The algorithms that define these sites should be made transparent so that users can see how the information flow is regulated and choices should be offered so that minorities can get access to that content if they wish. Other activities include the support of diverse content and countering of misinformation, including fact-checking partnerships and content identification.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.