Even the filter bubble’s own proponent concedes its effects proved smaller than expected

Evidence

Facebook’s own study generated lots of controversy not only because it was led by a Facebook scientist but also because these results contradicted commonly held assumptions among journalists and scientists about the negative impact of echo chambers. Even Eli Pariser himself was surprised that the effects of the filter bubble were much smaller than he thought they would be. Accordingly, the Facebook study fuelled much scepticism about whether or not ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’ are a real concern. Facebook is not wrong about the social science research cited in their report per se. There is scholarly debate about the extent to which social media companies are to blame. Moreover, although the Facebook team didn’t think that their algorithm was that consequential for people’s exposure to diverse news sources, they do recognize the issue that the networks of conservatives and liberals – by and large – consist of fellow liberals and conservatives. It’s an echo chamber. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 426

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: which specific claims of the filter-bubble thesis did the Facebook study actually undermine versus merely qualify?