Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-dc8c957cd-jlg5l Total loading time: 0.211 Render date: 2022-01-28T20:46:18.954Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Echo Chambers and Audio Signal Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2020

Benjamin Elzinga*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, WashingtonDC, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: be72@georgetown.edu

Abstract

Following Cass Sunstein's popular treatment of the concept, echo chambers are often defined as environments which exclude contrary opinions through omission. C. Thi Nguyen contests the popular usage and defines echo chambers in terms of in-group trust and out-group distrust. In this paper, I argue for a more comprehensive treatment. While both exclusion by omission and out-group distrust help sustain echo chambers, neither defines the phenomenon. I develop a social network model of echo chambers which focuses on the role of belief-reinforcing echoes. First, I argue that the model allows us to incorporate Nguyen's main point about distrust without construing other commentators as deeply mistaken about the nature of echo chambers. Second, I use the model to develop an account of collaborative resistance and use it to clarify the role echo chambers play in spreading misinformation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E. (2013). The Imperative of Integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bakshy, E., Messing, S. and Adamic, L.A. (2015). ‘Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook’. Science 348(6239), 1130–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Battaly, H. (2014). ‘Varieties of Epistemic Vice’. In Matheson, J. and Vitz, R. (eds), The Ethics of Belief: Individual and Social, pp. 5176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaly, H. (2015). ‘Epistemic Virtue and Vice: Reliabilism, Responsibilism, and Personalism’. In Mi, C., Slote, M. and Sosa, E. (eds), Moral and Intellectual Virtues in Western and Chinese Philosophy, pp. 99120. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Battaly, H. (2018 a). ‘Can Closed-mindedness be an Intellectual Virtue?Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 84, 2345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaly, H. (2018 b). ‘Closed-mindedness and Dogmatism.’ Episteme 15(3), 261–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begby, E. (2020). ‘Evidential Preemption’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkler, Y., Faris, R. and Roberts, H. (2018). Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, C. (2016). Norms in the Wild: How to diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, C. and Mercier, H. (2014). ‘Norms and Beliefs: How Change Occurs’. In Xenitidou, M. and Edmonds, B. (eds), The Complexity of Social Norms, pp. 3754. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, W.J., Wills, J.A., Jost, J.T., Tucker, J.A. and Van Bavel, J.J. (2017). ‘Emotion Shapes the Diffusion of Moralized Content in Social Networks.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114(28), 7313–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassam, Q. (2016). ‘Vice Epistemology.’ The Monist 99(2), 159–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassam, Q. (2018). ‘Epistemic Insouciance.’ Journal of Philosophical Research 43, 120. Online First. doi: 10.5840/jpr2018828131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, J. (2016). ‘What the EU Referendum Result Teaches us about the Dangers of the Echo Chamber.’ http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/07/what-eu-referendum-result-teaches-us-about-dangers-echo-chamber.Google Scholar
Clark, D. (2018). Behind the Curve. Delta-v Productions.Google Scholar
Craver, C. and Tabery, J. (2017). ‘Mechanisms in Science.’ In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring Edition), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/science-mechanisms/>..>Google Scholar
Crockett, M.J. (2017). ‘Moral Outrage in the Digital Age.Nature Human Behaviour 1(11), 769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennett, D.C. and LaScola, L. (2015). Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind. Pitchstone Publishing.Google Scholar
Dotson, K. (2014). ‘Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression.’ Social Epistemology 28(2), 115–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, D. (2011). ‘The Dunning-Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance.’ Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 44, 247.Google Scholar
Fantl, J. (2018). Limitations of the Open Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, H.G. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. (2009). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, R.K., Weeks, B.E. and Neo, R.L. (2016). ‘Driving a Wedge Between Evidence and Beliefs: How Online Ideological News Exposure Promotes Political Misperceptions.’ Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21(5), 331–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A.I. (1979). ‘What is Justified Belief?’ In Pappas, G. (ed.), Justification and Knowledge, pp. 125. Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Haugeland, J. (2002). ‘Authentic Intentionality.’ In Scheutz, M. (ed.), Computationalism: New Directions, pp. 159–74. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heron, M.J., Belford, P. and Goker, A. (2014). Sexism in the Circuitry: Female Participation in Male-dominated Popular Computer Culture. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 44(4), 1829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, M. and Freire, P. (1990). We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Hosanagar, K. (2016). ‘Blame the Echo Chamber on Facebook. But Blame Yourself, Too.’ Wired. https://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-echo-chamber/.Google Scholar
Jamieson, K.H. and Cappella, J.N. (2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jane, E.A. (2016). Misogyny Online: A Short (and Brutish) History. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. (2014). ‘With #GamerGate, the Video-game Industry's Growing Pains go Viral.’ The Washington Post.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. (2018). ‘True Story: Echo Chambers are Not the Problem.’ Morning Consult. https://morningconsult.com/opinions/true-story-echo-chambers-not-problem/.Google Scholar
Mackie, J.L. (1965). ‘Causes and Conditions.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 2(4), 245–64.Google Scholar
Mackie, J.L. (1974). The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mantilla, K. (2015). Gendertrolling: How Misogyny Went Viral. ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Marwick, A. and Lewis, R. (2017). Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. New York, NY: Data and Society Research Institute.Google Scholar
Massanari, A. (2017 a). ‘# Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit's Algorithm, Governance, and Culture Support Toxic Technocultures.’ New Media and Society 19(3), 329–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massanari, A.L. (2017 b). 'Damseling For Dollars': Toxic Technocultures and Geek Masculinity'. In Lind, R.A. (ed.), Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 316–17.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1996). Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, J. (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, R. (2005). ‘Getting Told and Being Believed.’ Philosopher's Imprint 5(5), 129.Google Scholar
Nguyen, C. (2020). ‘Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles.’ Episteme 17(2), 141–61. doi: 10.1017/epi.2018.32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, C. and Weatherall, J.O. (2019). The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Rourke, P. (2014). ‘GamerGate has nothing to do with ethics in journalism.’ Canada.com.Google Scholar
Ornstein, M. (2016). Accidental Courtesy: Daryl Davis, Race and America. Independent Lens.Google Scholar
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web is Changing What we Read and How We Think. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Pariser, E. (2015). ‘Did Facebook's Big Study Kill My Filter Bubble Thesis?’ Wired.Google Scholar
Parkin, S. (2014). ‘Zoe Quinn's Depression Quest.’ The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/zoe-quinns-depression-quest.Google Scholar
Rini, R. (2017). ‘Fake News and Partisan Epistemology.Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 27(2), E-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2012). ‘Causal Contextualisms.’ In Blaauw, M. (ed.), Contrastivism in Philosophy: New Perspectives, pp. 4371. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spinney, L. (2017). ‘The Shared Past that Wasn't.’ Nature News 543(7644), 168–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2009 a). Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2009 b). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Tufekci, Z. (2014). ‘Engineering the Public: Big Data, Surveillance and Computational Politics.First Monday 19(7). doi: 10.5210/FM.V19i7.4901.Google Scholar
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Echo Chambers and Audio Signal Processing
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Echo Chambers and Audio Signal Processing
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Echo Chambers and Audio Signal Processing
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *