The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 49 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Filter bubble
Open accessAbstract
Concepts such as ‘filter bubble’ enjoy considerable popularity in scholarly as well as mainstream debates, but are rarely defined with any rigour. This has led to highly contradictory research findings. This article provides a critical review of the ‘filter bubble’ idea, and concludes that its persistence has served only to distract scholarly attention from far more critical areas of enquiry.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This critical review argues that the “filter bubble” concept, introduced by Eli Pariser in 2011, lacks robust empirical support and has been used interchangeably with “echo chambers” despite vague definitions. It concludes that persistent public belief in filter bubbles has created a discursive reality that misdirects scholarly and regulatory attention from more fundamental social and political causes of polarisation.
Key findings
- Empirical evidence for search filter bubbles is weak: Nechushtai and Lewis found Google News searchers in the US were directed overwhelmingly to “longstanding national newspapers and television networks”; Haim et al. found “only minor effects of personalization on content diversity” in Germany; and Krafft et al. explicitly “deny the algorithmically based development and solidification of isolating filter bubbles.”
- Social media users often encounter diverse views: a Pew survey before the 2016 US election reported that only “23% of Facebook users and 17% of Twitter users say [that] most of the people in their networks hold political beliefs similar to theirs,” while more than one quarter had “blocked or unfriended” contacts over unwanted political content.
- Incidental exposure on social media is associated with more diverse news diets: research using Digital News Report data found that “those who are incidentally exposed to news on social media use more different sources of online news than non-users.”
- Homophily exists but does not generally produce closed bubbles: a 2017 German Facebook network analysis found only the extreme-right AfD followers diverged significantly, concluding “apparently closed filter bubbles do not exist in large parts of the political spectrum in Germany”; Australian and Norwegian Twitter maps showed interest-driven clusters but few significant disconnects across the overall network.
Methods
- Design: critical review and conceptual critique of the “filter bubble” and related “echo chamber” concepts, drawing on prior empirical studies, theoretical literature, and public discourse.
- Data or sample: no new empirical data; the article synthesises existing studies from search-engine personalisation, social media network analysis, survey research, and media/communication scholarship.
- Main analysis: proposes minimal definitions—echo chamber as preferential connection with like-minded others, filter bubble as preferential communication with like-minded others—and reviews evidence across network science, social science, media and communication studies, and social/political relevance.
Limitations
- The paper states that Pariser and Sunstein never clearly defined “filter bubble” or “echo chamber,” and that empirical studies have generally introduced their own definitions, reducing comparability.
- It acknowledges that large-scale, longitudinal, survey-based observations may be valid at an aggregate level but “show considerable variation for individual communities and individuals,” and that further research should confirm search results across more national contexts and a broader range of search engines and news portals.
- Evident from the text: this is a critical review rather than a systematic review or new empirical study, so its conclusions rely on selected prior literature and examples, with no original data collection or formal meta-analysis.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
39 Own interpretation · 12 Sources not found · 7 Not checked yet · 6 Partly supported · 6 No full text of the sources · 3 No basis given · 2 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“search and social media users generally appear to encounter a highly centrist media diet that is, if anything, more diverse than that of non-users.”
§ Filter bubble > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Fletcher & Nielsen, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) find that people incidentally exposed to news on social media used more online news sources than social-media non-users; the Discussion says this likely increases diversity. The paper does not establish that users’ media diets are highly centrist, and it does not make the claimed comparison for search users. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“many of the hyperpartisans with the strongest adherence to extremist views -from anti-vaccination and anti-climate science activists to the right-wing extremists supporting Donald Trump or the AfD -are also highly engaged with the mainstream media, at least in order to monitor what their enemies are thinking”
§ Filter bubble > MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION STUDIES
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Gentzkow & Shapiro 2011, p. 1823 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“readers of extremist white supremacy sites are significantly more likely to visit the New York Times or similar quality news outlets than ordinary news users, for example (Gentzkow & Shapiro 2011, p. 1823)”
§ Filter bubble > MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION STUDIES
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Gentzkow & Shapiro 2011, p. 1823 source
Section 5.2 (cited as p. 1823) reports that visitors to stormfront.org, described as a pro-White activist discussion board, were twice as likely as Yahoo! News visitors to visit nytimes.com in the same month. This supports the comparison with ordinary news users; the specific outlet measured in this example is nytimes.com. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“online and social media users consume a particularly diverse news diet (Fletcher & Nielsen, 2018;Anspach, 2017)”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Fletcher & Nielsen, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports that social media users who may encounter news incidentally use significantly more online news sources than non-users. The Discussion says this likely increases diversity, but the finding concerns that specific group, not online and social media users generally, and diversity is inferred from the number of sources. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Anspach, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“while politically hyperpartisan hashtags or conspiracy theory pages may attract a fairly homogenous community of participants, these particular online spaces do not exist in isolation, but are embedded into a much more complex and varied social media platform, which in turn forms only one component of a rich and diverse media ecology (cf.Dubois & Blank, 2018).”
§ Filter bubble > NETWORK SCIENCE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dubois & Blank, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and ‘Measuring echo chambers in a high-choice environment’ say that even a polarized social-media platform is only one part of a larger, diverse media environment. They do not establish that hyperpartisan hashtags or conspiracy-theory pages sit within a varied platform, so the within-platform part of the claim is not supported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This article provides a critical review of the 'filter bubble' idea, and concludes that its persistence has served only to redirect scholarly attention from far more critical areas of enquiry.”
§ Filter bubble > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The persistent use of the filter bubble and echo chamber concepts in mainstream media and political debates has created a discursive reality that materially impacts societal institutions, media, platforms, and users.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in spite of Pariser's founding anecdote there is a severe lack of convincing evidence for the existence of significant filter bubbles in search results.”
§ Filter bubble > (INTER-)DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON FILTER BUBBLES
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nechushtai and Lewis, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Haim et al., 2018 source
- Not matchedcites Krafft et al., 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet, there is scant empirical evidence for their existence, or for the related concept of 'echo chambers':”
§ Filter bubble > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nechushtai and Lewis, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Haim et al., 2018 source
- Not matchedcites Krafft et al., 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In 2018 alone, three major studies showed substantial overlaps in the search results seen by users of different political and other interests:”
§ Filter bubble > (INTER-)DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON FILTER BUBBLES
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nechushtai and Lewis, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Haim et al., 2018 source
- Not matchedcites Krafft et al., 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“empirical studies exploring the existence and impact of filter bubbles (and echo chambers) in any context have generally been forced to introduce their own definitions, which reduces their comparability”
§ Filter bubble > (INTER-)DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON FILTER BUBBLES
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Notably, there are a great many contexts where such homophily can be understood as beneficial:”
§ Filter bubble > NETWORK SCIENCE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Helberger, 2019 source
The Concluding Remarks say that selective exposure may benefit media and citizens depending on the values and conditions at stake. The sections on participatory and liberal recommenders give distinct examples: like-minded filtering may help marginalised voices organise, while focused recommendations may deepen expertise. These passages support the claim in the paper’s context of news recommendations. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For Twitter, comprehensive maps of follower connections in the Australian (Bruns et al., 2017) and Norwegian Twitterspheres (Bruns & Enli, 2018) have similarly shown the existence of interest-driven clusters of dense interconnection around topics from politics to sports, but point to few significant disconnects across the overall network.”
§ Filter bubble > NETWORK SCIENCE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bruns et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Analysis and Network Structure sections describe densely connected, predominantly thematic clusters in the Australian follower network, including politics and sports. The paper also describes some clusters as comparatively isolated, but does not establish that there are few significant disconnects across the overall network; its principal map focuses on 255,000 best-connected accounts. The Norwegian findings belong to the separately cited source and are not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Supportedcites Bruns & Enli, 2018 source
For the Norwegian Twittersphere, the Conclusion and outlook identifies clusters based largely on thematic interests and says that, despite densely connected regions, accounts follow a diverse range of others. The Network structure section describes clusters around politics and sports and says the network is fairly well connected throughout. The separate Australian citation is not being assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“While the empirical evidence does not support the existence of echo chambers and filter bubbles as actual, observable phenomena in public communication”
- Also stated in: § SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT · boosted
“there is a pronounced absence of evidence that genuine filter bubbles or echo chambers are real, outside of highly specific and unusual contexts”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bruns, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Dubois & Blank, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports little evidence of echo chambers across the full media environment, but identifies a small group for whom an echo chamber is more likely. The Background (page unavailable) says the study focuses on people’s information choices rather than algorithmic filtering, so it does not support the claim about filter bubbles or the categorical claim that neither phenomenon is observable. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Zuiderveen Borgesius et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 6. CONCLUSION says there is no empirical evidence warranting strong worries about filter bubbles, and the section on prevalence of self-selected personalisation says that, if echo chambers exist, their walls are porous. That supports skepticism about their prevalence or effects, but not the stronger claim that empirical evidence does not support their existence as observable phenomena in public communication. The paper does not confine their existence to highly specific or unusual contexts. (LLM, conf=0.87)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT · boosted
In the paper
“Pariser largely fails to provide a clear definition for the 'filter bubble' concept; it remains vague and founded in anecdotes.”
§ Filter bubble > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pariser, 2011a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This terminological confusion -about the exact definitions of either term in itself, and about their interrelationship with each other -has significantly hindered our ability to test them through rigorous research.”
§ Filter bubble > INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“However, in such recent discussions the term 'filter bubble' is no longer primarily applied to search results, as it was in Pariser's original conceptualisation; today, filter bubbles are more frequently envisaged as disruptions to information flows in online and especially social media.”
§ Filter bubble > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pariser, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Newman et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“at least for search, it seems that the filter bubble idea has deflated: far from the vision (or threat) of an individually unique Daily Me, personalisation in general and newsspecific search results still appears to be exceptionally limited.”
§ Filter bubble > (INTER-)DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON FILTER BUBBLES
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nechushtai and Lewis, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Haim et al., 2018 source
- Not matchedcites Krafft et al., 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the originator of the 'echo chamber' concept, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, never clearly defines the latter term either.”
§ Filter bubble > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sunstein, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This definitional blur at the heart of the concept did not prevent it from gaining considerable currency in scientific as well as mainstream societal discourse, however:”
§ Filter bubble > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Obama, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, the localised homophily that is likely to exist in specific contexts and spaces does not fundamentally undermine the general heterogeneity of the hybrid media ecology, and cannot usually prevent its participants from encountering -willingly or unwillingly -a broad range of information and perspectives.”
§ Filter bubble > MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION STUDIES
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, network science studies that look beyond such inherently ideological communities find significantly less homophily and polarisation in non-political contexts, and also detect considerable crossconnection between the groups that populate those ideological spaces.”
§ Filter bubble > NETWORK SCIENCE
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For social media, on the other hand, the debate about filter bubbles and echo chambers continues, with various studies both supporting and denying their existence.”
§ Filter bubble > (INTER-)DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON FILTER BUBBLES
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, especially in comparison with earlier concerns about the fragmentation of national mediaspheres as a result of the multiplication of cable channels or online information sources, or about social stratification due to diverging media literacies amongst different parts of the population, the echo chamber and filter bubble concepts clearly centre on the individual media user and their tre”
§ Filter bubble > CONCLUSION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“such large-scale, longitudinal, survey-based observations may be valid at an aggregate level, but show considerable variation for individual communities and individuals:”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL SCIENCE
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“"The myth of the filter bubble", above all, "is one thing: a big misunderstanding" (Meineck, 2018, n.p.;my translation)”
§ Filter bubble > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Meineck, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mainstream media have operationalised it to suggest that only their orderly and professional gatekeeping procedures, and not the collective and self-organising gatewatching processes on social media, have the ability to sufficiently inform citizens, for example”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“as O'Hara and Stevens describe it, "a networked individual would have to enter the echo chamber and somehow lose his or her diverse connections, replacing them with more and stronger connections within the echo chamber"”
§ Filter bubble > MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION STUDIES
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites O'Hara and Stevens
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2015]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, such moral panics often also serve as part of the rear-guard defence of the old elites that stand to lose the most from any change to the status quo”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that, contrary to concerns about the fragmentation of society as a result of filter bubbles, for many users social media have positively increased the diversity of their information diet, and prevent them from becoming locked into ideological monocultures.”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL SCIENCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concepts like 'echo chamber' and 'filter bubble' -which, notably, were introduced not by scholars in media, communication, internet, or related fields of study, but by authors working well outside their area of expertise (Pariser is an activist and tech entrepreneur, Sunstein is a legal scholar)”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For societies where ideological boundaries align with clear economic, ethnic, or religious divisions, and where bipolar two-party systems prevent the emergence of centrist consensus alternatives to the polarised status quo, this challenge is especially acute.”
§ Filter bubble > CONCLUSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the claim that audiences and voters diverging from these well-trodden paths do so because they are caught in technologically created filter bubbles and can no longer be reached by reasoned, sensible argument also has the considerable added benefit that the journalists and politicians making that claim are never required to confront their own failings”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“establishment politicians have used it to assert that only their welldesigned party structures, and not the populist and/or grassroots models of their opponents, can provide strong and stable leadership for their countries”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“otherwise, the network structures of both Twitterspheres facilitate a largely unencumbered flow of information across the entire user base and would therefore be unable to support the existence of filter bubbles.”
§ Filter bubble > NETWORK SCIENCE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If there is a filter at all, then, it is not the algorithmic filter postulated by the 'filter bubble' concept, which prevents us altogether from seeing 'different' content that runs counter to our own worldviews -rather, the more critical filter exists (more weakly formed perhaps in the societal mainstream, more strongly developed on the extreme fringes) in our heads, and variously leads us to ad”
§ Filter bubble > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hall, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the relative prevalence of the filter bubble idea in different countries' political debates may also indicate the depth of broader concerns about their political and democratic processes”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“since dial-in bulletin board systems and the early Usenet first became popular, it has been this very opportunity to connect with like-minded others that has attracted users to computer-mediated communication platforms (e.g., Baym, 2000).”
§ Filter bubble > NETWORK SCIENCE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baym, 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to result in a notable divergence in the information diets experienced by members and nonmembers of an echo chamber or filter bubble, they would actively have to both seek out engagement with like-minded others (in other words, pursue selective exposure), and stay away from those who might introduce them to alternative views (that is, practice selective avoidance).”
§ Filter bubble > NETWORK SCIENCE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These moral panics point to the persistence of a simplistic and naïve understanding of media effects both amongst the general public and amongst media and political actors.”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fact checks may still be valuable to prevent mainstream users from drifting off to the fringes -but for those already on the fringe they only serve to deepen their disconnect from rational public debate.”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“such transformations are not fuelled simply by surface factors such as the communication technologies and platforms preferred by these new political actors and their established opponents, respectively -rather, they are an expression of far more fundamental social, economic, societal, and political challenges”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While such earlier concerns tackled aggregate, population-wide trends, therefore, these new phenomena are driven by individualised personalisation processes (and possible user interventions in such personalisation).”
§ Filter bubble > CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while not neutral, the technologies and their providers are neither inherently good nor evil in this, but can be employed by their users to serve socially and societally beneficial as well as disruptive ends”
§ Filter bubble > CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“have served to obscure considerably more pressing societal problems, and to misdirect scholarly, journalistic, and regulatory attention to the technological rather than social and societal factors underpinning these problems”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“such network science approaches mainly tend to look for evidence of homophily: a preference for interconnections between participants with similar interests, views, and ideologies.”
§ Filter bubble > NETWORK SCIENCE
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Phenomena such as homophily (as well as heterophily) can be readily observed in contemporary communicative spaces, as can the algorithmic shaping and personalisation of newsfeeds and information streams (as well users' efforts to control such shaping).”
§ Filter bubble > CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That this message is still not getting through to the general public shows the seductive nature of moral panic narratives, but must also count as a failing for media and communication research.”
§ Filter bubble > SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RELEVANCE AND IMPACT
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The persistent use of the filter bubble and echo chamber concepts in mainstream media and political debates has created a discursive reality that materially impacts societal institutions, media, platforms, and users.
“However, the persistent use of these concepts in mainstream media and political debates has now created its own discursive reality that continues to impact materially on societal institutions, media and communication platforms, and ordinary users themselves.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Filter bubble > (INTER-)DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON FILTER BUBBLES
“In 2018 alone, three major studies showed substantial overlaps in the search results seen by users of different political and other interests: Nechushtai and Lewis reported that Google News searchers in the US were directed overwhelmingly to "longstanding national newspapers and television networks" (2018, p. 302)”
§ Filter bubble > References
“20. Nechushtai, E., & Lewis, S. C. (2019). What Kind of News Gatekeepers Do We Want Machines to Be? Filter Bubbles, Fragmentation, and the Normative Dimensions of Algorithmic Recommendations.”
Citations
Cites
I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, D. (2011) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444810365313 · Cited by 4,612
(2011) · Cited by 4,430
Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2015
Newman, N., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2619576 · Cited by 1,890
Negroponte, N., & Asher, M. (1995) · doi:10.1016/0099-1333(95)90102-7 · Cited by 1,866
The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media
Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1428656 · Cited by 1,055 · cited 3×
“…to develop more systematic and empirically verifiable definitions for either term (e.g., O’Hara & Stevens, 2015; Zuiderveen Borgesius et al ., 2016; Dubois & Blank, 2018), and to re-evaluate extant studies against such definitions (e.g., Bruns, 2019), but there is a need for considerably more…”
BackgroundInfluentialIdeological Segregation Online and Offline *
Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjr044 · Cited by 980 · cited 1×
“…with the mainstream media, at least in order to monitor what their enemies are thinking: readers of extremist white supremacy sites are significantly more likely to visit the New York Times or similar quality news outlets than ordinary news users, for example (Gentzkow & Shapiro 2011, p. 1823).”
BackgroundTune in, Log on: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community
Baym, N. (2000) · doi:10.4135/9781452204710 · Cited by 863
Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817724170 · Cited by 738 · cited 2×
“…are unlikely to drive filter bubble tendencies: indeed, research using the survey data gathered for the Digital News Report has shown that “those who are incidentally exposed to news on social media use more different sources of online news than non-users” (Fletcher & Nielsen, 2018, p. 2459).”
BackgroundShould we worry about filter bubbles?
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C. H., & Helberger, N. (2016) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2016.1.401 · Cited by 541
Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media
Spohr, D. (2017) · Business Information Review · doi:10.1177/0266382117722446 · Cited by 530
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79 (pp. 128-139). London: Unwin
- Pariser, E. (2015, May 7). Did Facebook's Big Study Kill My Filter Bubble Thesis? Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2015/05/did-facebooks-big-study-kill-my-filter- bubble-thesis/
- Schmidt, J.-H. (2014). Twitter and the Rise of Personal Publics. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and Society (pp. 3-14). New York: Peter Lang.
- Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo Chambers: Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure
Dahlgren, P. (2021) · Nordicom review/NORDICOM review · doi:10.2478/nor-2021-0002 · Cited by 179
Himeur, Y., Sohail, S. S., Bensaali, F., Amira, A., & Alazab, M. (2022) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2022.102746 · Cited by 139
Eg, R., Tønnesen, O. D., & Tennfjord, M. K. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100253 · Cited by 137
Recommender systems and the amplification of extremist content
Whittaker, J., Looney, S., Reed, A., & Votta, F. (2021) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2021.2.1565 · Cited by 135
“There is little distinction made between the similar, yet different, concepts of filter bubbles and echo chambers (Zuiderveen Borgesius et al., 2016; Bruns, 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialConceptualizing “Dark Platforms”. Covid-19-Related Conspiracy Theories on 8kun and Gab
Zeng, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2021) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2021.1938165 · Cited by 125
“The prevalence of legacy and authoritative information sources provide evidence to support Bruns (2019) critique on filter bubbles.”
BackgroundFilter bubbles in recommender systems: Fact or fallacy—A systematic review
Areeb, Q., Nadeem, M., Sohail, S., Imam, R., Doctor, F., Himeur, Y., Hussain, A., & Amira, A. (2023) · WIREs Data. Mining. Knowl. Discov. · doi:10.1002/widm.1512 · Cited by 101
“Author/Year Survey prime coverage Related to recommender system? [39] Filter bubble No [40] Selectivity of exposure preferences and actual exposure No [41] Avoiding filter bubbles in social networks No [42] Social media echo chambers No”
BackgroundAlgorithmic Closeness in Mourning: Vernaculars of the Hashtag #grief on TikTok
Krutrök, M. E. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211042396 · Cited by 81
“However, considering the continuous (and valid) critiques of the so-called online “filter bubbles” phenomenon (see, for example, Bruns, 2019 and Dahlgren, 2021), I do not propose that these communities experience a closed off bubble where algorithmic filtering disallows users to view other forms of…”
BackgroundBastian, M., Helberger, N., & Makhortykh, M. (2021) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2021.1912622 · Cited by 102
“…reconsider the meaning and purpose of diversity in news is further amplified by the threat of political polarization, concerns about the formation of so-called algorithmic filter bubbles, and the lack of variation in personalized information selection (Zuiderveen Borgesius et al. 2016; Bruns 2019).”
Kaiser, J., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120969914 · Cited by 74
“This fear is closely related to what Pariser (2011) called the “filter bub-ble”: an algorithm-driven process that would encapsulate each internet user in their own personalized bubble.”
BackgroundFact-Checking Misinformation: Eight Notes on Consensus Reality
Vinhas, O., & Bastos, M. (2022) · Journalism Studies · doi:10.1080/1461670x.2022.2031259 · Cited by 74
“the disconnect between fringe groups and the consensual discourse in the polity (Bruns 2019).”
BackgroundTowards responsible media recommendation
Elahi, M., Jannach, D., Skjærven, L., Knudsen, E., Sjøvaag, H., Tolonen, K., Holmstad, Ø., Pipkin, I., Throndsen, E., Stenbom, A., et al. (2021) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00107-7 · Cited by 80
“…systems actually may have not isolated large segments of the audience into bubbles to a large extent (e.g., Fletcher and Nielsen, 2017; Fletcher, 2020; Haim et al, 2018; M¨oller et al, 2018; Bechmann and Nielbo, 2018), or that filter bubbles are rather mainly formed in our heads (Bruns, 2019a,b).”
BackgroundNews recommender systems: a programmatic research review
Mitova, E., Blassnig, S., Strikovic, E., Urman, A., Hannák, A., de Vreese, C. H., & Esser, F. (2022) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2022.2142149 · Cited by 69
“…2021; but see Levy, 2021 for divergent findings), or Twitter (e.g. Bandy & Diakopoulos, 2021; Chen et al., 2021; but see Jürgens & Stark, 2022 for divergent findings) is low and often exaggerated (see also Bruns, 2019; Fletcher et al., 2021; Möller, 2021; Zuiderveen Borgesius et al., 2016).”
BackgroundExamining the interactive effects of the filter bubble and the echo chamber on radicalization
Wolfowicz, M., Weisburd, D., & Hasisi, B. (2023) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-021-09471-0 · Cited by 54
“Second, measures of ‘echo chamberness’ often fail to capture the type of network structure characteristics described by the respective propositions (Bruns 2019a).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBogert, J. M., Buczny, J., Harvey, J. A., & Ellers, J. (2023) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2023.2280749 · Cited by 63
“It is only one platform among many that research subjects are able to interact with, leading to a possibly much more varied media diet, which in turn helps to limit the e ff ect of echo chambers (Bruns, 2019 Dubois & Blank, 2018; Tuitjer & Dirksmeier, 2021;).”
BackgroundBurkell, J., & Regan, P. M. (2019) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2019.4.1438 · Cited by 80
“…from like-minded individuals” and ‘filter bubbles’ as when “content is selected by algorithms according to a viewer’s previous behavior” (p. 1130) and Bruns (2019) distinguishes ‘echo chambers’ as a group choosing “to preferentially connect with each other to the exclusion of outsiders” and…”
BackgroundInfluentialHow news media frame data risks in their coverage of big data and AI
Nguyen, D. (2023) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2023.2.1708 · Cited by 55
Reddit quarantined: can changing platform affordances reduce hateful material online?
Copland, S. (2020) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2020.4.1516 · Cited by 43
“While recent empirical research has called into question the widespread existence of filter bubbles online (Zuiderveen Borgesius, Trilling, Möller, Bodó, de Vreese and Helberger, 2016; Bruns, 2019), some research has shown they may exist at the extremes of the ideological spectrum (Rietzschel, 2017).”
BackgroundWhat Are Filter Bubbles Really? A Review of the Conceptual and Empirical Work
Michiels, L., Leysen, J., Smets, A., & Goethals, B. (2022) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3511047.3538028 · Cited by 58
“Following the widespread criticism of Pariser’s thesis [6–8, 33 ], Dahlgren explicitly sets out to Dahlgren’s conceptualization of the technological filter bubble addresses two sources of ambiguity found in the original thesis.”
BackgroundMethodSocial media and perceived climate change efficacy: A European comparison
Tuitjer, L., & Dirksmeier, P. (2021) · Digital Geography and Society · doi:10.1016/j.diggeo.2021.100018 · Cited by 49
A review of public opinion on liquid biofuels in the EU: Current knowledge and future challenges
Løkke, S., Aramendia, E., & Malskær, J. (2021) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106094 · Cited by 42
Grusauskaite, K., Carbone, L., Harambam, J., & Aupers, S. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231162585 · Cited by 37
“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.”
Measuring Automated Influence: Between Empirical Evidence and Ethical Values
Susser, D., & Grimaldi, V. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462532 · Cited by 33
“Not everyone is convinced that filter bubbles are quite so her-metically sealed (at least not yet) [11, 27, 115].”
BackgroundJuneja, P., Bhuiyan, M. M., & Mitra, T. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580846 · Cited by 33
We are the Change that we Seek
McKay, D., Makri, S., Lopez, M. G., MacFarlane, A., Missaoui, S., Porlezza, C., & Cooper, G. (2020) · Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3343413.3377975 · Cited by 37
Epistemic fragmentation poses a threat to the governance of online targeting
Milano, S., Mittelstadt, B., Wachter, S., & Russell, C. (2021) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-021-00358-3 · Cited by 29
Risius, M., Blasiak, K. M., Wibisono, S., & Louis, W. R. (2023) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12454 · Cited by 37
“It is currently not finally determined whether digital technologies exacerbate, mirror or reduce polarization (Bright, 2018; Bruns, 2019).”
BackgroundBuchanan, G. R., Kelly, R., Makri, S., & McKay, D. (2022) · Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3498366.3505823 · Cited by 26
Biases in scholarly recommender systems: impact, prevalence, and mitigation
Färber, M., Coutinho, M., & Yuan, S. (2023) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04636-2 · Cited by 31
“– Filter bubble or information bubble is a persistent phenomenon existing in search engine and social media (Bruns, 2019).”
BackgroundIorio, V. D., Testa, F., Korschun, D., Iraldo, F., & Iovino, R. (2022) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3243 · Cited by 25
Dommett, K., & Verovšek, P. J. (2021) · Javnost - The Public · doi:10.1080/13183222.2021.1955206 · Cited by 22
“And yet, once again, empirical studies have not painted an entirely uniform picture of what is happening on the Internet (Bruns 2019).”
BackgroundReligious “Bubbles” in a Superdiverse Digital Landscape? Research with Religious Youth on Instagram
Novak, C., Haselbacher, M., Mattes, A., & Limacher, K. (2022) · Religions · doi:10.3390/rel13030213 · Cited by 28
Explanations of news personalisation across countries and media types
Bastian, M., Makhortykh, M., Harambam, J., & van Drunen, M. Z. (2020) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2020.4.1504 · Cited by 23
“However, recent studies (Bruns, 2019; Dubois & Blank, 2018; Möller et al., 2018) question whether these effects exist, at least with regard to the general public, and point out that news personalisation can also promote diversity (Möller et al.”
BackgroundNguyen, K. M., Nguyen, N. T., Ngo, N. T. Q., Tran, N. T. H., & Nguyen, H. T. T. (2024) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2024.2375966 · Cited by 24
“Filter bubbles or information bubbles are prevalent occurrences in search engines and on social media (Axel Bruns, 2011).”
Polarisation and echo chambers? Making sense of the climate issue with social media in everyday life
Moe, H., Lindtner, S. S., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2023) · Nordicom review/NORDICOM review · doi:10.2478/nor-2023-0002 · Cited by 22
Helm, P., GÖTZEN, A. D., Cernuzzi, L., Hume, A., Diwakar, S., Ruíz-Correa, S., & Gática-Pérez, D. (2023) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517231206802 · Cited by 27
“By focusing on diversity, the WeNet-project responds to recent criticism of the so-called “ fi lter bubble ” and “ echo chamber ” effects (Bruns, 2019; Pariser, 2012).”
BackgroundConceptualising the ‘algorithmic public opinion’: Public opinion formation in the digital age
Gandini, A., Keeling, S., & Reviglio, U. (2025) · Dialogues on Digital Society · doi:10.1177/29768640251323147 · Cited by 35
“These variations are further compounded by equally heterogeneous legal and epistemological settings and by differing levels of understanding and interpretation of algorithmically powered public opinion processes (cfr. Helberger, 2019).”
Moats, D., & Tseng, Y. (2023) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2023.2230286 · Cited by 20
“Though the concept has since been critiqued (Bruns, 2019; Dubois & Blank, 2018), the idea is that digital platforms push users into ‘bubbles’ of similar political opinions, worldviews, and knowledges – in particular, algorithmic recommendations are said to filter out diverse opinions and feed users…”
BackgroundPersonalisation in Journalism: Ethical insights and blindspots in Finnish legacy media
Rydenfelt, H., Haapanen, L., Haapoja, J., & Lehtiniemi, T. (2022) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/14648849221138424 · Cited by 23
“While the existence of algorithmically generated fi lter bubbles and echo chambers remains debated (Zuiderveen Borgesius et al., 2016; Dubois and Blank, 2018; Bodó et al., 2019; Bruns, 2019), the negative consequences of selective exposure nevertheless exist in subtle and complicated ways.”
BackgroundIf it is bad, why don’t I quit? Algorithmic recommendation use strategy from folk theories
Chen, K. (2023) · Global Media and China · doi:10.1177/20594364231209354 · Cited by 17
Internet-based micro-identities as a driver of societal disintegration
Kossowska, M., Kłodkowski, P., Siewierska-Chmaj, A., Guinote, A., Kessels, U., Moyano, M., & Strömbäck, J. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02441-z · Cited by 22
Joris, G., Vercoutere, S., Clercq, O. D., Damme, K. V., Mechant, P., & Marez, L. D. (2022) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2022.2106445 · Cited by 19
“Although many of these concerns have been nuanced (see, e.g., Bruns 2019), exposure diversity remains an increasingly popular topic in the field of communication science.”
Optimising Emotions, Incubating Falsehoods
Bakir, V., & McStay, A. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13551-4 · Cited by 20
Contextures of hate: Towards a systems theory of hate communication on social media platforms
Barth, N., Wagner, E., Raab, P., & Wiegärtner, B. (2023) · The Communication Review · doi:10.1080/10714421.2023.2208513 · Cited by 26
“Media scholars have not only criticized the echo chamber thesis that Habermas is referring to (Bruns, 2019a, 2019b; Törnberg, 2022) but have also argued for a more differentiated concept of digital publics.”
BackgroundKnowledge mapping of information cocoons: A bibliometric study using visual analysis
Yan, C., Pu, K., & Luo, X. (2024) · Journal of Librarianship and Information Science · doi:10.1177/09610006231222628 · Cited by 15
“Bruns (2019) suggests that the “filter bub-ble” generated by information is a key driver of populist politics like Brexit, Trump, or Bolsonaro and is responsible for social & ideological polarization in many countries.”
Turn and Face the Strange: Investigating Filter Bubble Bursting Information Interactions
McKay, D., Owyong, K., Makri, S., & Lopez, M. G. (2022) · Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3498366.3505822 · Cited by 16
Müller, P., Harrendorf, S., & Mischler, A. (2022) · European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10610-022-09509-7 · Cited by 16
Anwar, M. S., Schoenebeck, G. R., & Dhillon, P. S. (2024) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3589334.3645497 · Cited by 14
“However, he didn’t provide a definitive framework, resulting in an ongoing debate marked by an absence of a universally accepted, operational definition [3].”
BackgroundYTTREX: Crowdsourced Analysis of YouTube’s Recommender System During COVID-19 Pandemic
Sanna, L., Romano, S., Corona, G., & Agosti, C. (2021) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-76228-5_8 · Cited by 13
“After the concept became widely discussed in the everyday debate, the academics started questioning the existence of the filter bubble effect, following the ideas proposed by Bruns [6] that claimed that there is no evidence that echo chambers and filter bubbles exist outside the academic theory.”
BackgroundMedienkompetenz als Schlüssel für Demokratiekompetenz
Schröder, M. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-33255-6_5 · Cited by 13
“So würden weitaus ernstere Probleme im Zusammenhang mit dem Aufkommen von Populismus verschleiert (Bruns 2019).”
BackgroundSchellingerhout, R., Beraldo, D., & Marx, M. (2023) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2023.2209153 · Cited by 13
“These arguments have for long relied on largely anecdotal accounts and might underestimate the relative importance of individual selective exposure and social processes of homophily (Bruns 2019; Hosseinmardi et al. 2020; Spohr 2017; Zuiderveen Borgesius et al. 2016).”
BackgroundHelm, P., Michael, L., & Schelenz, L. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3514094.3534149 · Cited by 11
“While the term itself is contested and different authors may refer to different things, the general idea is that users are trapped in a chamber echoing their own beliefs and interests [6].”
BackgroundKessler, S. H., & Humprecht, E. (2023) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076231177131 · Cited by 11
For Example: How to Use Examples in Political Science
Dryzek, J. S. (2024) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055424000480 · Cited by 10
Young People Learning About Algorithms: Five Profiles Spanning From Ineptitude to Enchantment
Brites, M. J., Castro, T. S., Müller, M. S., & Maneta, M. (2024) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.8272 · Cited by 14
Can We Hide in Shadows When the Times are Dark?
Quandt, T. (2021) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v9i1.4020 · Cited by 10
Media Platforms and Algorithms: content and social implications
Nazarov, M. M. (2020) · Communicology · doi:10.21453/2311-3065-2020-8-2-108-124 · Cited by 13
Serttaş, A., Gürkan, H., & Dere, G. (2025) · Journalism and Media · doi:10.3390/journalmedia6030149 · Cited by 14
“To better conceptualize this, Bruns (2019) argues that echo chambers should be understood through the lens of factionalism, where users coalesce around shared identities and grievances, often intensifying polarization.”
Schmidt, F., Mangold, F., Stier, S., & Ulloa, R. (2024) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2024.2342983 · Cited by 9
Bodrunova, S. S., Blekanov, I. S., & Maksimov, A. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77626-8_14 · Cited by 9
Ranaivoson, H. R., & Domazetovikj, N. (2023) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v11i2.6401 · Cited by 12
Epistemic Responsibility, Rights and Duties During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Karimov, A. R., Lavazza, A., & Farina, M. (2022) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2022.2077856 · Cited by 10
“Filter bubbles (Flaxman, Goel, and Rao 2016; Bruns 2019) are informational spaces where those relying on their news invariably get the information that favors their opinion.”
BackgroundPolitical Influencers and Their Social Media Audiences during the 2021 Arizona Audit
Rose, K., & Rohlinger, D. A. (2024) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/23780231241259680 · Cited by 8
“Furthermore, given that echo chambers can emerge from smaller groups of users densely connected with one another (Bruns 2019), focusing on micro-influencers can help scholars identify political, and potentially politically extreme, echo chambers.”
Spyridou, L., Djouvas, C., & Milioni, D. L. (2022) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi14100284 · Cited by 9
Poliittinen polarisaatio ja journalismi: neljä medialuottamusprofiilia
Reunanen, E. (2022) · Media & viestintä · doi:10.23983/mv.125625 · Cited by 8
Chae, S. W., & Hara, N. (2023) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2023.2227674 · Cited by 8
“Along with these mixed fi ndings, some recent studies (Bruns, 2019; Tuters, 2020) noted the di ffi culty of determining which notion is correct and that, more importantly, the reality is more dynamic than the simple molds that previous studies suggested.”
BackgroundResultMcKay, D., Makri, S., Lopez, M. G., Porlezza, C., MacFarlane, A., Cooper, G., & Missaoui, S. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24885 · Cited by 8
“However, there is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that concerns about filter bubbles and echo chambers have been overstated (Dubois & Blank, 2018; Fletcher & Nielsen, 2017, 2018b); despite the hype, there is no empirical evidence of a filter bubble effect (Bruns, 2019).”
BackgroundInfluential“It Became No Man’s Land”: The Burden of Moderating Online Harassment in Newswork
Dodds, T., Geboers, M., & Boukes, M. (2026) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2024.2387664 · Cited by 8
“In fact, exposure to diversified information can intensify polarization by reinforcing in-group identification and creating an “other” that represents the political enemy (Bruns 2019).”
Ахременко, А. С., & Викторовна, Б. Е. (2021) · Monitoring obŝestvennogo mneniâ: èkonomičeskie i socialʹnye peremeny · doi:10.14515/monitoring.2021.6.2111 · Cited by 8
Eilders, C., Kelm, O., & Weinmann, C. (2022) · Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen · doi:10.1515/fjsb-2022-0024 · Cited by 7
Serendipity as a Design Principle of Personalization Systems—Theoretical Distinctions
Reviglio, U. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33529-7_8 · Cited by 7
Designing with Uncertainty: LLM Interfaces as Transitional Spaces for Democratic Revival
Delacroix, S. (2025) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-025-09736-x · Cited by 10
“Bruns ( 2019 ) challenges the filter bubble thesis by documenting the substantial cross-ideological exposure that characterizes actual digital media consumption patterns.”
Digital Echo Chambers as Phenomenon of Political Space
Beznosov, M., & Golikov, A. (2022) · RUDN Journal of Political Science · doi:10.22363/2313-1438-2022-24-3-499-516 · Cited by 7
“And it received a very substantial response from the journalist community resulting in the additional attention to this issue eventually also raising the interest in the problem of “echo chamber” [Bruns 2019] — and its potential harms to the ways we live and operate.”
BackgroundRight-Wing Twitter Users in France Exhibit Growing Homophily Compared With Left and Center Users
Gurchani, U. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051241234689 · Cited by 6
“Bruns (2019) challenges the notion of filter bubbles, contending that their existence has been overstated in traditional media.”
BackgroundSocializing the political: rethinking filter bubbles and social media with Hannah Arendt
Daus, Z. (2024) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-024-09759-5 · Cited by 10
“Findings such as these appear to confirm the claim that “the more critical filter […] exists in our heads” (Bruns, 2019, p. 10).”
Hate-sharing: A case study of its prevalence and impact on Gab
Weigel, M., & Gitomer, A. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448241245349 · Cited by 9
“Numerous critics have objected that popular and academic discourse about the echo chamber effect is “overstated” (Dubois and Blank, 2018) and may “obscure the real problem” (Bruns, 2019) or even constitute an echo chamber itself (Guess et al., 2018).”
Estimating ideology and polarization in European countries using Facebook data
Caravaca, F., González-Cabañas, J., Cuevas, √., & Cuevas, R. (2022) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00367-1 · Cited by 12
Spitzmüller, J., & Pfadenhauer, M. (2024) · Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik · doi:10.1515/zgl-2024-2002 · Cited by 5
van Es, K. F., & Nguyen, D. (2024) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2024.2392654 · Cited by 7
“Impor-tantly, the filter bubble hypothesis has not been substantiated by empirical studies (Bruns 2019), and some suggest that recommender systems may support diversity exposure (Helberger 2015; Möller et al. 2018).”
The return of propaganda: Historical legacies and contemporary conceptualisations
Bolin, G., & Kunelius, R. (2023) · Nordic Journal of Media Studies · doi:10.2478/njms-2023-0001 · Cited by 5
Information Bubble: How to Control Democracy in the Information Society Era
Milczarek, E. (2023) · Izzivi prihodnosti · doi:10.37886/ip.2023.001 · Cited by 9
Sosyal Medyadaki Yanlış Bilgiye Yönelik Kullanıcı Doğrulama Davranışlarının İncelenmesi
Salman, G. (2023) · Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.17829/turcom.1196015 · Cited by 4
Narrative diffusion in social networks: a survey
Gurung, M. I., & Agarwal, N. (2025) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-025-01565-1 · Cited by 6
Bagnoli, F., Cavalcabo’, G. D. B., Casu, B., & Guazzini, A. (2021) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi13110296 · Cited by 4
The mind online: Can digital technologies affect how we think?
Ρούσσος, Π. (2023) · Psychology the Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society · doi:10.12681/psy_hps.36226 · Cited by 6
Jindal, P., & Gouri, H. (2024) · Advances in marketing, customer relationship management, and e-services book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-1918-5.ch004 · Cited by 5
Recommendation Systems: Issues, Challenges and Regulations
Furini, M. (2024) · IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC) · doi:10.1109/iscc61673.2024.10733684 · Cited by 6
“Furthermore, they can contribute to political polarization by selectively presenting contents that reinforces users’ political ideologies: the Cambridge Analytica case highlighted how algorithms attempted to influence the democratic process in elections [39].”
BackgroundWho Cares How Information Feels? A Call for Digital Influence Literacy
Senft, T. M. (2025) · Asian Bioethics Review · doi:10.1007/s41649-024-00350-0 · Cited by 4
“Again, a causal relationship between automated filtering and ideological polarization has yet to be proven, at least in political contexts (Bruns 2019).”
Technik als Weltbezug, Affordanzen als Reflexionsbegriff
König, T. (2022) · Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft · doi:10.1007/s41358-022-00312-8 · Cited by 4
Flood the Zone with Shit: Algorithmic Domination in the Modern Republic
Maynor, J. W. (2025) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci14060391 · Cited by 3
The role of the Internet in political socialization of modern Russian youth
Samsonova, T. N., & Leonov, E. K. (2022) · Moscow State University Bulletin Series 18 Sociology and Political Science · doi:10.24290/1029-3736-2022-28-2-93-118 · Cited by 3
Heyen, F., & Manzel, S. (2023) · Sozialwissenschaften und Berufspraxis · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-38268-1_9 · Cited by 4
Norberg, P. A., & Horne, D. R. (2024) · Journal of Consumer Affairs · doi:10.1111/joca.12586 · Cited by 4
Santana, R. D., & Neves, B. C. (2022) · Logeion Filosofia da Informação · doi:10.21728/logeion.2022v8n2.p47-64 · Cited by 3
Wenzlhuemer, R., Menger, T., Huber, V., et al. (2023) · Journal of Modern European History · doi:10.1177/16118944221148939 · Cited by 3
Tuomola, S. (2023) · Media & viestintä · doi:10.23983/mv.131188 · Cited by 3
Understanding the Role of Social Media Toward Satisfaction of Government in Indonesia
Sakti, R., & Nainggolan, B. (2023) · Jurnal Komunikasi Indonesia · doi:10.7454/jkmi.v12i1.1185 · Cited by 12
The Evolution of Conformity, Malleability, and Influence in Simulated Online Agents
Downing, K. L. (2023) · Artificial Life · doi:10.1162/artl_a_00413 · Cited by 3
“…the user’s horizons and are key tools for the future of computing, and more recent publications by communication researchers (Borgesius et al., 2016; Bruns, 2019) claim that filter bubbles and echo chambers are poorly defined concepts that have no clear correlation with personalization and get far…”
BackgroundMethodHow platform power undermines diversity-oriented innovation
Helm, P. (2024) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2024.2.1780 · Cited by 3
Skovgaard, L., & Grundtvig, A. (2023) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076231169832 · Cited by 3
Exploring Users' Perspectives on a Solid-Enabled Personal Data Store Enhanced Streaming Service
Theys, T., Hove, S. V., Mechant, P., Impe, G. V., Heerinckx, A., & Saldien, J. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713308 · Cited by 2
“…system can be useful for retrieving relevant content; however, it also carries the risk of creating flter bubbles that isolate individuals from diverse perspectives, limiting exposure to a narrow set of content [3] and potentially contributing to societal and ideological polarization [8].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Bruns, A.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Bruns, Axel
- ORCID
- Bruns, Axel
- Venue
- Internet Policy Review
- Published
- 2019-11-29
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 2197-6775 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4206182481
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 30.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Internet Policy Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- filter bubbles, algorithmic filtering, information filtering, internet environment, conceptual definitions, research critique
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
