• TAG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    21 hours ago

    The article argues that extremist views and echo chambers are inherent in public social networks where everyone is trying to talk to everyone else. That includes Fediverse networks like Lemmy and Mastodon.

    They argue for smaller, more intimate networks like group chats among friends. I agree with the notion, but I am not sure how someone can build these sorts of environments without just inviting a group of friends and making an echo chamber.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I had couple of fairly diverse group chats and the more sensitive people left real quick. In my experience you can discuss politics or economy among friends with different views but when you touch social issues it gets toxic real fast. Pretty much like on social networks.

      • TAG@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        They left entirely? Not just tuned out the group until the topic of conversation moved on?

        • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It kind of always circled back so they left after couple of times. But I’m sure it depends on the group. If the group serves some purpose (like organizing some meetups) people definitely stay for longer. If it’s for talking shit I don’t think it works well. Same like social media.

    • MysteriousSophon21@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      There’s actually some interesting research behind this - Dunbar’s number suggests humans can only maintain about 150 meaningful relationships, which is why those smaller networks tend to work better psychologicaly than the massive free-for-alls we’ve built.