Debating (in) echo chambers: How culture shapes communication in conspiracy theory networks on YouTube
Open accessAbstract
The ubiquity of social media platforms fuels heated discussions about algorithms and selection biases leading people into online “echo chambers.” Scholars argue that social media deepen societal polarization and fuel political extremism. However, studies often focus on media effects, disregarding individual agency and (sub)cultural values that shape communication. As a strategic case study, this article, based on a mixed-methods analysis, including a social network and qualitative analysis of 1199 comments under four conspiracy theory comment sections on YouTube, questions how insular these spaces are? And how people in these networks communicate? We find that the discussions in our strategically sampled comments sections lie between homogeneous closed debates and open debates. In other words, the networks in our sample vary in their “echo chamberness.” Based on our findings, we contend that variations in the echo chamberness of the various comment sections can be explained via the lens of conspiratorial (sub)cultures.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Culture or demographics drive polarization and echo chambers.
“novel research [61,64,92] finds that culture or demographics drive polarization and echo chambers.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [92]
The Abstract and Conclusion and discussion say that conspiratorial subcultures help explain differing degrees of echo-chamberness across four sampled YouTube comment sections. They do not find that demographics drive echo chambers—the conclusion proposes that as a topic for future research—or that culture drives polarization. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics
Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001 · Cited by 1,504 · see citing works
Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users
Garrett, R. K. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x · Cited by 1,040 · see citing works
Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook
Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep37825 · Cited by 576 · see citing works
Bruns, A. (2019) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2019.4.1426 · Cited by 193 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Taking this critique of technological determinism one step further, Bruns (2019) scruti-nizes studies blaming algorithms for political disruptions and calls for studies that go beyond platform dynamics alone.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- Aupers, S (2020) Decoding mass media/encoding conspiracy theory. In Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. Routledge. 469-482
- Aupers, S. (2012). "'Trust No One': Modernization, Paranoia and Conspiracy Culture." European Journal of Communication, 26(4), 22-34.
- Barkun, M. (2006). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Burgess, J, & Green, J (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. John Wiley & Sons.
- Caballero, EG (2020) Social network analysis, social big data and conspiracy theories. In Routledge handbook of conspiracy theories. Routledge.135-147
- Colleoni, E, Rozza, A, & Arvidsson, A (2014) Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of communication, 64(2), 317-332.
- Cross, A. (2004). The flexibility of scientific rhetoric: A case study of UFO researchers. Qualitative Sociology, 27(1), 3-34.
- Dentith, M. R. (2019). Conspiracy theories on the basis of the evidence. Synthese, 196(6), 2243-2261.
- Dubois, E and Blank, G, (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), pp.729-745.
- Forberg, P. L. (2022). From the Fringe to the Fore: An Algorithmic Ethnography of the Far-Right Conspiracy Theory Group QAnon. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 51(3), 291-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912416211040560 · DOI
- Fortunato, S (2010) Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486(3-5), 75-174.
- Freeman, LC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239.
- Garimella, K, De Francisci Morales, G, Gionis, A, & Mathioudakis, M (2018). Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In Proceedings of the 2018 WWW Conference (913-922)
- Gawrylewski, A. (2022), Truth under attack, Scientific American, September 2022 Special edition
- Geiß, S, Magin, M, Jürgens, P, & Stark, B (2021) Loopholes in the Echo Chambers: How the Echo Chamber Metaphor Oversimplifies the Effects of Information Gateways on Opinion Expression. Digital Journalism, 9(5), 660-686.
- Hall, S (1980) Encoding/decoding. Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (ed.) Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies. 79, 128-38.
- Harambam, J (2020) Contemporary conspiracy culture: Truth and knowledge in an era of epistemic instability. Routledge.
- Harambam, J, & Aupers, S (2017) "I am not a conspiracy theorist": Relational identifications in the Dutch conspiracy milieu. Cultural Sociology, 11(1), 113-129.
- Harambam, J., & Aupers, S. (2021). From the unbelievable to the undeniable: Epistemological pluralism, or how conspiracy theorists legitimate their extraordinary truth claims. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 24(4), 990-1008.
- Harambam, J., Grusauskaite, K., & de Wildt, L. (2022). Poly-truth, or the limits of pluralism: Popular debates on conspiracy theories in a post-truth era. Public Understanding of Science, 096366252210921. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221092145 · DOI
- Husting, G, & Orr, M (2007 Dangerous machinery: "Conspiracy Theorist" As A Transpersonal Strategy Of Exclusion. Symbolic interaction, 30(2), 127-150.
- Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. NYU Press.
- Klein C, Clutton P, Dunn AG (2019) Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit's conspiracy theory forum. PLOS ONE 14(11): e0225098. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225098 · DOI
- Knight, P. (2000). Conspiracy Culture: From Kennedy to the X-Files. London. New York, NY: Routledge.
- Leifeld, P & Haunss, S, (2012) Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 51(3), 382-409.
- Murdock, G. (1974), 'Mass communication and the construction of meaning', in Armistead (ed.) Reconstructing Social Psychology. Penguin.
- Murthy, D, & Sharma, S (2019) Visualizing YouTube's Comment Space: Online Hostility As A Networked Phenomena. New media & society, 21(1), 191-213.
- Nguyen, CT (2020) Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141-161.
- Nicas, J (2018) How YouTube Drives People To The Internet's Darkest Corners. Wall Street Journal, February 7.
- Pachucki, MA & Breiger, RL (2010) Cultural holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annual Review Of Sociology, 36, 205-224.
- Quattrociocchi, W, Scala, A and Sunstein, CR, (2016) Echo chambers on Facebook. Available at SSRN 2795110.
- Robertson, DG (2016) UFOs, conspiracy theories and the new age: Millennial conspiracism. Bloomsbury Publishing.
- Sunstein, CR (2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.
- Thornton, S (1995) Club Cultures: Music, media and Subcultural Capital. Oxford, Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Vermeule, C.A. and Sunstein, C.R., 2009. Conspiracy theories: causes and cures. Journal of Political Philosophy. 202 (17).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Grusauskaite, K., Carbone, L., Harambam, J., & Aupers, S.
- Affiliations
- KU Leuven (BE)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Grusauskaite, Kamile
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-04-17
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 7037-7057
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W4366089774
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10
- FWCI
- 12.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- handle.uba.uva.nl
- Locations
- New Media & Society (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Imagining Opaque Power. The Production and Consump)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Keywords
- echo chambers, conspiracy theories, online communication, polarization, individual agency, subcultural values, social media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
