“European Union is going down, drowning in refugees, who walk around, robbing, raping and killing anyone they please.” “Vaccines are a part of Big Pharma’s plan to earn more and also a reason why there is now Autism.” “Children from Russian speaking families are taken away without any particular reason and given away to gay couples.” And then “the Jews - they already own everything in Hollywood and also the banks.” “Brexit is good, Brits took back their country.” “Climate change is a hoax.” And at the end of all this there are “media who want to hide all this information from you.”

Does it sound crazy? Not, if you live in a conservative-conspiracy echo chamber that starts with TV and ends with the internet.

One might think – of course, there are people who are exposed to propaganda on the media, but after all, there is internet and other news outlets that give a different point of view. Internet is free, information flow is free. Western world enjoys free media.

Unfortunately, people who have already been exposed to DAESH and Kremlin propaganda messages most probably will continue to believe in them even after they have read an opposing view. So people who in theory have access to a vast array of opposing views, tend to believe in conspiracy theories, fake statements about national, NATO and EU policies. For example, if a person watches RT and believes that “Western media has conspired against Russia and Putin”, they will most probably also trust all the other things that will be broadcasted on this media channel. And vice versa – if there is media that states the opposite, a person will not trust its judgement on other issues[1].     

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal[2] exposed the reality of internet echo-chambers, demonstrating how reality may differ for different Facebook users. Scholars and businesses are already worried that social networks can create “echo chambers,” where users see posts only from like-minded friends and media sources, but should also governments be concerned?

But it is not only the internet that creates echo-chambers.

For example, a 2014 research on people’s attitudes towards the global warming concluded that use of conservative media sources such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh is associated with the belief that global warming is not happening and greater opposition to climate policies, whereas use of non-conservative media such as network TV news, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR is associated with the belief that climate change is happening and greater policy support. In turn, audiences’ beliefs about global warming drive them to select media outlets that support their perspectives, which further strengthens these views over time in an ongoing, reinforcing cycle. This may be further exacerbated by conservative media’s attempts to insulate their audiences from opposing views—in part, by denouncing the mainstream media (i.e., other news sources) as liberal, biased, and not to be trusted. [3] This is another problem with echo chambers - democratic engagement at its best is characterised by fair presentation of the other side and fair rebuttal.

Echo-chambers existed well before the internet and TV came in. A recent study[4] found that the relatively mild anti-Nazi slant in radio news programmes between 1929 and 1932 was effective in substantially reducing the Nazi Party vote in three consecutive parliamentary elections. In 1933, Nazis took control over radio and began airing pro-Nazi propaganda; in just one month, this fully undid the effect of anti-Nazi radio of the previous four years. So it is not only propaganda that can change people’s perceptions, it is the way it is being conveyed via echo-chambers.

Existing in echo-chambers is human and technology preys on it.

It is a natural urge of a human being, called homophilia – to seek out like-minded people and have a need to communicate with them. Academics and experts usually see it during conferences when they participate in conference panels, where there are no opposing views presented. This is why also work in NGOs is so fulfilling emotionally – working together with like-minded people for a better cause gives a feeling of accomplishment.

Social media on the other hand works to create behavioural loops - applications trigger a need and provide the momentary solution to it. Facebook’s trigger is FOMO, fear of missing out.[5] So we have an urge to check social media networks again and again and we are determined to do so by their design –constant alerts and notifications.

Or maybe there are some views you do not want to hear? Then you can unlike Facebook pages, unfriend some people and after all – like some politicians do, block opposing views on Twitter. For example, Sarah Palin launched her own news website where she claimed to talk about issues the media does not want you to know[6]. RT and Sputnik also rely on the idea that people distrust the media and they can give an alternative point of view.

But what happens when individuals lack independent sources of information? They rely on information provided by others around them, and it is called a cascade effect. It means that people end up believing something—even something that is false—simply because other people seem to believe it too. Many people lacking firm convictions of their own may end up believing what other influential people seem to believe.[7]

Echo-chambers polarize views.

When it comes to explicitly political issues, individuals are clearly more likely to pass on information that they have received from ideologically similar sources than to pass on information that they have received from dissimilar sources. Researchers have also observed that liberals are significantly more likely than conservatives to participate in cross-ideological dissemination of political and non-political information. [8]

And algorithms on social media work by self-censorship so that people never see anything but what they already agree with. It also radicalises opinions[9]. When groups of individuals discuss opposing views, the result is that their points of view are not only reinforced but also become more extreme.

Pew Research Centre project [10] in America found that polarised crowds on Twitter are not arguing but ignoring one another while pointing to different web resources and using different hashtags.

Echo-chambers influence people’s trust in institutions and government policies.

When scholars investigated the link between news media and political attitudes of citizens, it showed that media exposure affects confidence in political institutions. In 2015 study[11], they analysed trust in government in twenty-seven European countries, testing the interactive relationship between citizens’ policy views and media slant. The results showed that the pro- or anti-government slant of media outlets interacts with the individual ideological views of each citizen and confirmed that media act like echo-chambers that reinforce pre-existing attitudes.

If people in their media, especially, internet consumption, exist in echo chambers where they are exposed only to content consistent with their opinions, and are shielded from dissenting views, it is difficult for policymakers and the public to achieve mutual understanding and compromise on the most pressing issues of the day.

As Erica Lee writes in her Martens Centre blog: “The UK referendum, in this regard, is a wake-up call. Populist ideas must be addressed and this has to be done not with a giant POPULIST rubber stamp aimed at silencing the conversation, but by listening to the concerns of voters and effectively communicating the positive value of the European project.”[12] The outcome of the vote was a complete surprise for those who were against the Brexit as they were living in their own echo-chamber.   

Wael Ghonim, who is credited with helping to launch 2011’s Tahrir Square revolution via his anonymous Facebook page, laments the state of things today by saying “We tend to only communicate with people that we agree with, and thanks to social media, we can mute, un-follow and block everybody else. Five years ago, I said, “If you want to liberate society, all you need is the Internet”. Today I believe if we want to liberate society, we first need to liberate the Internet.”[13]

We need to find a way to insist on net neutrality and revive moderation while respecting free speech and without handing government the power to propagandise and censor. It is not an easy task and governments have already failed in doing that[14]. But there is a need for governments to start learning how to reach people beyond their echo-chambers as it will become a future challenge that should not be ignored.