Echo chambers? Filter bubbles? The misleading metaphors that obscure the real problem
Open accessAbstract
Many politicians, journalists and scholars suggest that echo chambers and filter bubbles are chiefly responsible for the emergence of communities, particularly online, that espouse contrarian and counterfactual perspectives and ideologies, and for their disconnect from the societal mainstream. Echo chambers are said to enable these groups to reinforce their views by connecting with like-minded others; filter bubbles to shield them from encountering contrary perspectives. They are assumed to result from a combination of individual choice, in selecting the news sources to consult or the social media accounts to follow, and the algorithmic shaping of such choices, as search engines, news portals and social media platforms highlight and recommend some sources over others. Rigorous empirical evidence for the operation of such processes is sorely lacking, however. Building on empirical studies that show no significant evidence of filter bubbles or echo chambers in search or social media, this chapter argues that echo chambers and filter bubbles principally constitute an unfounded moral panic that presents a convenient technological scapegoat for a much more critical, fundamentally human-made problem: growing social and political polarization. The ‘echo chamber’ and ‘filter bubble’ metaphors have seriously distracted us from addressing that problem, and must now be put to rest.
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?
Online echo chambers might have a more minor role than has been commonly assumed and are smaller than offline echo chambers.
“Online echo chambers might have a more minor role than has been commonly assumed (Bakshy et al., 2015; Bruns, 2021; Guess et al., 2018; Sumpter, 2018; Törnberg, 2022) and are smaller than offline echo chambers (Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2011).”
From Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media. (2024) · cites this paper as Bruns, 2021
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
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 · see citing works
Should 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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This is concerning: “one lesson we should have learned from the past is that panic does not lead to sane policies” (Zuiderveen Borgesius et al. 2016: 11).”
BackgroundThe Australian Twittersphere in 2016: Mapping the Follower/Followee Network
Bruns, A., Moon, B., Münch, F., & Sadkowsky, T. (2017) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305117748162 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- Adamic, L.A. & Glance, N. (2005). The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog. In J. Adibi, M. Grobelnik, D. Mladenic, & P. Pantel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery (pp. 36-43). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277 · DOI · Paper page
- Bruns, A. (2017, 15th September). Echo Chamber? What Echo Chamber? Review- ing the Evidence. Future of Journalism 2017. Available at https://bit.ly/3tezC8o
- Bruns, A. (2018b). Facebook Shuts the Gate after the Horse Has Bolted, and Hurts Real Research in the Process. Internet Policy Review. Available at https://bit. ly/2MoCAqb
- Bruns, A. (2019). Are Filter Bubbles Real? Cambridge, MA: Polity.
- Bruns, A. & Enli, G. (2018). The Norwegian Twittersphere: Structure and Dynam- ics. Nordicom Review, 39(1), pp. 129-148. doi :10.2478/nor-2018-0006 · DOI · Paper page
- Dubois, E. & 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. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656 · DOI · Paper page
- 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 World Wide Web Conference (pp. 913-922). Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. doi: 10.1145/3178876.3186139 · DOI · Paper page
- Garrett, R.K., Carnahan, D. & Lynch, E.K. (2013). A Turn toward Avoidance? Selective Exposure to Online Political Information, 2004-2008. Political Behav- ior, 35(1), pp. 113-134. doi: 10.1007/s11109-011-9185-9186. · DOI
- Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J.M. (2011). Ideological Segregation Online and Offine. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, pp. 1799-1839. doi: 10.1093/qje/ qjr044 · DOI · Paper page
- Habermas, J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democ- racy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory, 16, pp. 411-426. doi: 10.1111/ j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x · DOI
- Haim, M., Graefe, A. & Brosius, H.-B. (2018). Burst of the Filter Bubble? Effects of Personalization on the Diversity of Google News. Digital Journalism, 6(3), pp. 330-343. doi:10.1080/21670811.2017.1338145 · DOI · Paper page
- Helberger, N. (2011). Diversity by Design. Journal of Information Policy, 1, pp. 441-469. doi: 10.5325/jinfopoli.1.2011.0441 · DOI
- Krackhardt, D. & Stern, R.N. (1988). Informal Networks and Organizational Crises: An Experimental Simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), pp. 123-140. doi: 10.2307/2786835 · DOI
- Marwick, A.E. & boyd, D. (2011). I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), pp. 114-133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313 · DOI · Paper page
- 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. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, pp. 298-307. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.043 · DOI · Paper page
- Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Levy, D.A.L. & Nielsen, R.K. (2016). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journal- ism. Available at https://bit.ly/3cyVeX9
- Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), pp. 43-51. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974. tb00367.x · DOI · Paper page
- O'Hara, K. & Stevens, D. (2015). Echo Chambers and Online Radicalism: As- sessing the Internet's Complicity in Violent Extremism. Policy & Internet, 7(4), pp. 401-422. doi:10.1002/poi3.88 · DOI
- Orellana-Rodríguez, C. & Keane, M.T. (2018). Attention to News and Its Dissem- ination on Twitter: A Survey. Computer Science Review, 29, pp. 74-94. doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2018.07.001 · DOI
- Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. London: Penguin.
- Pariser, E. (2015, 7th May). Did Facebook's Big Study Kill My Filter Bubble Thesis? Wired. Available at https://bit.ly/36sLppJ
- Smith, N. & Graham, T. (2017). Mapping the Anti-Vaccination Movement on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 22(9), pp. 1310-1327. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1418406 · DOI · Paper page
- Sunstein, C.R. (2001a). Echo Chambers: Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Sunstein, C.R. (2001b). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Sunstein, C.R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Sunstein, C.R. (2017). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Weeks, B.E., Ksiazek, T.B. & Holbert, R.L. (2016). Partisan Enclaves or Shared Media Experiences? A Network Approach to Understanding Citizens' Politi- cal News Environments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(2), pp. 248-268. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2016.1164170 · DOI
- Weinberger, D. (2017, 20th July). Pointing at the Wrong Villain: Cass Sunstein and Echo Chambers. Los Angeles Review of Books. Available at https://bit. ly/2MNcPQb
- Williams, H.T.P., McMurray, J.R., Kurz, T. & Lambert, F.H. (2015). Network Analysis Reveals Open Forums and Echo Chambers in Social Media Discus- sions of Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 32, pp. 126-138. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media.
Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231185057 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
“Online echo chambers might have a more minor role than has been commonly assumed (Bakshy et al., 2015; Bruns, 2021; Guess et al., 2018; Sumpter, 2018; Törn-berg, 2022) and are smaller than offline echo chambers (Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2011).”
Background
- Authors
- Bruns, A.
- Corresponding author
- Bruns, Axel
- ORCID
- Bruns, Axel
- Venue
- Hate Speech and Polarization in Participatory Society
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2021-09-30
- Pages
- 33-48
- OpenAlex
- W3188521623
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5
- FWCI
- 59.92
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- echo chambers, filter bubbles, algorithmic curation, social media, search engines, news consumption, political polarization, moral panic, online communities, contrarianism
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
