Do you think ideas stay in echo chambers? Do you not understand that ideas have real implications in the real world? What makes you think this Substack is an echo chamber? Have you spent some time in this substack or gone over the comments sections to understand the makeup of its subscribers.
Interesting that you are able to make an "echo chamber" evaluation without examining (or spending time) in the substack (or reading Caitlin's articles).
Not everything we say or do is based on objective data, sorry if that's how you function, I just don't qualify what I say as objective if it isn't. What I said still stands, what your answer asks that matters in my opinion is if this place we are at (the comment section of this post) is an echo chamber or not. I think it mostly is. Like all of substack and social media in general almost (it would have to be actively fought to prevent one from only evolving in an echo chamber, and we know that's not how most people use social media, they just let the algorithm direct their feed).
You are entitled to your opinions (as everyone is), but without evidence (data), your claim has little merrit. One could make an argument that "every grouping" is potentially an echo chamber - starting from the smallest unit (family) and extending outwards towards larger and larger groups - relatives, friend circles, workplace, etc. etc.
Political parties can be echo-chambers. Religions can be echo-chambers. The word "echo-chambers" loses its meaning unless one brings objectivity into their analysis.
Like I said before - READ Caitlin's articles. She attacks BOTH Republicans AND Democrats. She is an equal-opportunity objective analyzer. There are people from ALL spectrums that read Caitlin's substack - from far-right to far-left, from Empire-haters to Empire-lovers.
Your statement of "echo-chamber" has little merit. If you want to know what a real echo-chamber is, look at Substacks of "Anti-Vaxxers", etc. to understand the difference.
Addendum: I should add - there are also serious/intense echo-chambers on the "Pro-Vaxx" and Pro-Mandate side of things, not just the Anti-Vaxx side.
I like how you stated things here and you are certainly correct that I don't have a lot of experience reading Caitlin's substack quite yet.
What I would say though is not that echo chambers looses meaning without objectivity. I would say that we have to see if it is relevant, and as far as this particular thread is, I believe it does based on the comments I'm reading here. Granted, the comments do not represent the content reading population, just the part that engages with the content through comments.
Oh I get the word of mouth and spreading the good word, but that doesn't happen in echo chambers 😕.
Do you think ideas stay in echo chambers? Do you not understand that ideas have real implications in the real world? What makes you think this Substack is an echo chamber? Have you spent some time in this substack or gone over the comments sections to understand the makeup of its subscribers.
Interesting that you are able to make an "echo chamber" evaluation without examining (or spending time) in the substack (or reading Caitlin's articles).
Not everything we say or do is based on objective data, sorry if that's how you function, I just don't qualify what I say as objective if it isn't. What I said still stands, what your answer asks that matters in my opinion is if this place we are at (the comment section of this post) is an echo chamber or not. I think it mostly is. Like all of substack and social media in general almost (it would have to be actively fought to prevent one from only evolving in an echo chamber, and we know that's not how most people use social media, they just let the algorithm direct their feed).
You are entitled to your opinions (as everyone is), but without evidence (data), your claim has little merrit. One could make an argument that "every grouping" is potentially an echo chamber - starting from the smallest unit (family) and extending outwards towards larger and larger groups - relatives, friend circles, workplace, etc. etc.
Political parties can be echo-chambers. Religions can be echo-chambers. The word "echo-chambers" loses its meaning unless one brings objectivity into their analysis.
Like I said before - READ Caitlin's articles. She attacks BOTH Republicans AND Democrats. She is an equal-opportunity objective analyzer. There are people from ALL spectrums that read Caitlin's substack - from far-right to far-left, from Empire-haters to Empire-lovers.
Your statement of "echo-chamber" has little merit. If you want to know what a real echo-chamber is, look at Substacks of "Anti-Vaxxers", etc. to understand the difference.
Addendum: I should add - there are also serious/intense echo-chambers on the "Pro-Vaxx" and Pro-Mandate side of things, not just the Anti-Vaxx side.
I like how you stated things here and you are certainly correct that I don't have a lot of experience reading Caitlin's substack quite yet.
What I would say though is not that echo chambers looses meaning without objectivity. I would say that we have to see if it is relevant, and as far as this particular thread is, I believe it does based on the comments I'm reading here. Granted, the comments do not represent the content reading population, just the part that engages with the content through comments.
Fair enough. I understand your viewpoint.