Parallel Networks = Echo Chambers?
Part and parcel of the effort to resist and reverse the present onslaught of technocratic tyranny is the fostering of parallel networks, the aim being to achieve a decoupling from channels that are under the control of the state and corporate behemoths. In the realm of free speech, this includes the setting up of alternative platforms such as Gab, Parler, Truth Social and others.
It is not unusual, however, to see this effort referenced as a drive towards creating “echo chambers”, in which those of different persuasions end up confined, in silos, to their own, individual discussion forums (see here for a recent example). Indeed, part of the rationale for Elon Musk’s (presently suspended) deal to purchase Twitter was to open it up as a “town square” in which everyone can exchange ideas in the same place.
While this risk remains a possibility, it seems to me to be overstated.
Echo chambers result only when divisions are made along relatively narrow lines. This does not have to go as far as the refusal to engage with those who differ on small details of doctrinal purity (similar to Monty Python’s “Judean People’s Front” and “People’s Front of Judea”). Merely that a particular group has to be insulated from having its assumptions challenged by other groups who are equally eager to determine the truth.
The purpose of parallel networks, however, is to create a division far more fundamental than this. It is isn’t trying to shut out those who merely have a different point of view or otherwise have something valuable to offer our own thinking. Rather, it is an attempt to get away from those who would hound us, silence us and censor us, all while their own arguments wallow in subjectivity, emotion and inconsistent “ends justifies the means” thinking. In other words, we are evading those who have no interest in rational debate in the first place. They want to rule and control us, not to engage with us and seek our input.
Not only, therefore, is an alternative platform likely to consist of a sufficiently broad church to allow the exchange of ideas to go unhindered, the project is about restoring a foundation for rational argument and free speech. It isn’t focussed on limiting what might be said. Indeed, users of such platforms are likely to welcome alternative views.
Is it possible that people will lose some exposure to alternative ideas in this process? Undoubtedly. And certainly, there is a risk that too many alternative platforms could be spawned, each tailored to a narrow interest, and each practising the kind of exclusionary techniques we are trying to get away from. (Some research, however, suggests that the extent of echo chambers on social media as a whole is limited.)
But that is likely to be a risk worth taking if the only alternatives are statist/corporatist/leftist managed platforms on which the ability to have any kind of real debate is shrinking by the day. Nor must we forget that the more that a certain activity becomes concentrated in one area the easier it is for governments to usurp and control it. So even if Elon Musk eventually manages to “rescue” Twitter from the jaws of censorship and control, there’s no guarantee it won’t be snatched back again.