Posit: what they call "echochambers" aren't a bad thing, because there's not 2 sides to every issue. If 85% of us believe that minority X are people, and 15% believe that X have no right to life, it's ok for the 85% to live in an "echochamber" of their belief in shared humanity
-
-
Politics as spectacle is the core vulnerability of our media - everything else follows.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The converse has also happened historically, unfortunately. The problem is in who ought to decide what is correct.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And in some cases, both "sides" are wrong and journalists fail to investigate because they think they've done their job in reporting the two equally wrong opposing beliefs.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think, being exclusively among selecte, like-minded people has allowed sceptisism of scientific facts to reappear (e.g. flat-earth believers). I don't have any hard facts to back this up, though. In general I agree that not every side of a story has to be heard, though.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Simple minds see only two sides and it's easy to manipulate them by presenting only two bad choices, but nature and reality provide a spectrum.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Who is arguing that some have no right to life?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.