I found an article from Slate Magazine this week that really caught my attention. The title is rather much an attention grabber – it’s called The End of the Echo Chamber. Well, it caught my attention, anyway.
For a long time, it seems, people have been complaining about the online echo chamber effect. Wikipedia has talked about this phenomenon. So has the New York Times. A lot of bloggers I know have also lamented the echo chamber effect, especially when it comes to a major (read popular) blogger saying something that then gets massively shared across the internet, whether the information is good or not.
The theory behind the echo chamber is pretty logical. When you have strong ties to a person online, a person who tends to visit the same sites, read the same stuff, etc., you tend to share a lot of what they write. They also tend to share a lot of what you write. As you meet more people like you, you all tend to start echoing each other, and as time goes by, you start to get a bit like a clique. People who disagree with you are viewed with suspicion or may be categorized as “the haters.” In short, a lot of negativity can result from the echo chamber effect online.
That is, if the echo chamber actually exists.
This article that I read, written by Farhad Manjoo, summarizes a study conducted by Eytan Bakshy soley on Facebook. Bakshy studied how information is shared on Facebook, maneuvering EdgeRank results with Facebook’s permission. After analyzing the behavior of some 250 million people, Bakshy came up with a surprising result. People are actually highly influenced by those with whom they share weak ties, not strong ties. People you have weak ties to are more likely to share information that you might not have found otherwise. Therefore, Facebook proves that there is no echo chamber.
To put it another way, if you see a link in your Facebook feed from a weak tie, you are just as likely to share it as a link from someone you’ve known for 30 years. Therefore, your world really isn’t shrinking online, it’s growing because of an exposure to new people and new information.
Or, as the study suggests:
We found that information shared by a person’s weak ties is unlikely to be shared at a later point in time independently of those friends. Therefore, seeing content from a weak tie leads to a nearly tenfold increase in the likelihood that a person will share a link. In contrast, seeing information shared by a strong tie in News Feed makes people just six times as likely to share. In short, weak ties have the greatest potential to expose their friends to information that they would not have otherwise discovered.
I’ve got problems with this concept
So, first things first. The author of the Slate article notes that because Facebook is promoting the study, and because Facebook gave Bakshy permission to do the study, the online network is probably pretty pumped that they come out smelling like roses. “We are opening your world. It’s the open graph, only, like, it’s your life!” Biased studies should always raise the eyebrows, vulcan style.
However, I have another problem with this concept, too. As I engage in Triberr and as I subscribe to more and more blogs, the same concepts and the same ideas are appearing again and again. Whether or not these people influence each other, something is influencing people in the online world to write about the same stuff. Maybe it’s a desire for traffic – how many articles about SOPA and PIPA did you see this week? Maybe it’s to show up well in Google searches – the number of posts about Pinterest over the last few weeks is pretty stunning. Or maybe it is just to try to get on the radar of a popular blogger. With Chris Brogan and Guy Kawasaki highly promoting Google Plus, is it really a surprise that a lot of people are out there writing about the same thing?
Methinks not.
Furthermore, and I haven’t read the entire study so I don’t know if it is addressed in there, but at least in the article, there doesn’t seem to be a differentiation between some important things like how you got to “friend” those weak ties on Facebook or the types of information people were sharing in their news feeds. For example, let’s say I share a lot of stuff from a person who would be  a “weak tie.” The stuff they post is a lot of funny pictures and videos that amuse me. Is that really widening my world and preventing the echo chamber? I might share stuff from a person I have strong ties to that is about our friendship and not about similar views. I might comment on items that I *have* seen all over the place.
To put it succinctly, it seems to me like there are too many variables to actually be able to state that 1 + 1 = 2. What is this “information” we are speaking of?
What do you think of this study? Do you think it’s just out there to prove Facebook is really awesome, or do you think there really is no echo chamber in the online world?
I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Image Credit:Â http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitaljourney/5573215501 via Creative Commons
Interesting. I smell a follow-up blog post cooking. 🙂
@jasonkonopinski Only if you’re writing it…so far 🙂
I’ve done a lot of behavioral analysis in this area as part of the influencer studies I’ve been involved in. There are a couple of elements here I’d note (haven’t read the study, simply going by your summary of it). First, it’s a misnomer to say that those results mean that there isn’t an echo chamber. The results simply say that there isn’t *only* a self-sustaining echo chamber. Of course there’s an echo chamber, (in all facets of our lives not just online). We are all a series of cliques, so let’s get that out of the way. We all gravitate to like-minded people, for a lot of complex reasons. Because they are more likely to expose us to something we would like (a sort of qualifying filter). Because they are more likely to like the things that we do (a sense of validation). Because we want to be accepted. And in the social media world, because they are more likely to share the things that we share and vice-versa. It’s also a bit of a ridiculous notion that there is ‘one’ echo chamber. There are many. The ‘popular kids’ (often described as A-listers in social media circles) are generally only described as such by another echo chamber (the ‘haters’ if you like). It’s all a question of perspective. Those ‘haters’ build their own echo chambers. Is one really different than the other simply because one has a broader pool of participants? I’ve used those two echo chamber examples simply because you referred to them, but there are an infinite number of them.
Now that that drudgery is out of the way, what’s the behavioral reason that people are more likely to click on something from a weak tie than a strong one? For the most part it’s because they either a) see an opportunity to bring a new topic into their echo chamber/clique that will resonate or b) are less likely to click on a link from their own echo chamber because they feel like it has already reached a point of saturation that their sharing it will add little value. Those two factors create a higher percentage likelihood of clicking on a weak ties link. (there are many more however, the study of how information flows through a social network is a fascinating one, but also incredibly complex and still not fully understood)
All of that said, the results are not the same on Twitter where people view the act of a RT very differently than they do a share on Facebook.
My .02 cents
Cheers,
-Matt
@techguerilla Interesting analysis, Matt. I think what we’re seeing across all social networks (both on – and off-line) are emerging patterns in the ways that people connect with one another and construct complex social relationships around speech communities and, further to that, how individuals curate participation in those speech communities. Language and behaviors become cultural identifiers, signifying to both those inside and outside the echo chamber as being ‘part of the club’.
*How* we curate the content that we consume is perhaps a more interesting question than *why*.
@techguerilla I think you will really dig this study, Matt. They do cover the fact that the information from weaker ties is often considered “novel.” By controlling the EdgeRank system, the study was able to look at whether people shared the same content without seeing it from their weaker ties first, and most of the time the answer was no (hence the published results). And the rationale for sharing from your weaker ties makes sense as you say. If 17 of my friends have posted one thing, I often feel kind of dumb posting the same thing. I mean, there might be some people who haven’t seen it yet, but boy am I late to the party.
It would be extremely interesting to look at sharing behaviors on Twitter, amongst bloggers (who comments on what blogs), and even the new Google Plus. What gets shared there?
Thanks for popping by and adding such great thoughts!
Margie, I really like this post. Like you, I see the same topics over-and-over, in blogs and in publications like Mashable. I have two issues with the conclusions in the study (and I certainly think the echo chamber exists).
First, it is a really big echo chamber that certainly extends beyond the people I am friends with on Facebook. That way too limited of a view.
Second, Facebook EdgeRank WORKS. People see things in their feed that are interesting to them, either because it is from a close friend or it is a topic that resonated with their friends. When you manipulate the results and show content Facebook normally wouldn’t show, people don’t know that is happening. They are inclined to think it might be interesting. Of course, if it ISN’T in their echo chamber group, it is unlikely they would have shared it later, therefore any small increase in sharing is a sizable increase in the likelihood of sharing.
When I get out of my marketing echo chamber, with personal friends that don’t use Twitter at all and still don’t know that some people spell clout with a K, views are very different. When I talk to people during my morning commute (I have used this as a time to get feedback from a random mix of commuters on marketing topics at times) or people from my church, it immediately becomes very clear that online, I’m part of an echo chamber of ideas that are completely disconnected from many of the people we, as marketers, claim that we are connecting with.
If you disagree, try this: Ask a local church pastor how much his last sermon increased his Klout score. 😉
@Wittlake That was part of the study – watching to see if people with weak ties ended up sharing the same content without seeing it from each other first. Overwhelmingly the answer was no. But again, I have to ask what kind of “information” we are talking about. Especially in this day and age, the word “information” is ridiculously general. A photo can be information. A news article, a blog post, a funny image, or an informative infographic are all information we can share on Facebook. Maybe, like I said, the study goes into some of that, but the article didn’t preview that part of it.
Yes, talking about social media stuff with people who aren’t in the space is quite often a humbling experience. It puts things in perspective, one might say 🙂
Here is what methinks as well Margie:
There always have been, and always will be, echochambers.
Now they’re just on a different platform called ‘the web’.
And honestly, I don’t have a problem with it. If someone wants diversity in their consumption, they’ll find it. If someone wants singularity, they’ll find that too.
And furthermore, I don’t have issues with bloggers talking about what their bud here or there friend there said. After all, it’s their blog, their thought platform.
Boring is a choice.
Fresh is a choice.
But it’s all their choice, and I’m very down with that.
Good stuff lady. 🙂
Marcus
@Marcus_Sheridan I agree with you for the most part, Marcus. The people who complain that everyone is saying the same thing always have the option to find people who are saying NOT the same thing. However, I would say that there is a lot of echo-echo in the online world, to the point where people become sheep rather than people. That part is a mite worrisome.
Thanks for popping by! 🙂
Pretty disturbing they would call it a study. Kind of like those purchased degrees. Anyway, we real-world people know that there is definitely an echo chamber. I must go a step further to say it’s one we create ourselves. Surrounded by people who run in the same circles, or on tangential circles, or sometimes just being in the same itty-bitty world, we can’t help but end up looking like bumper cars. In an echo chamber.
@ShakirahDawud I’m a little unclear on how the study was conducted too. And why this company was allowed to manipulate peoples’ news feeds. Kind of creepy if you ask me. But it does raise the point that often times articles (or blog posts) are given headlines that don’t really seem to tell the whole story. That being said, the title got me to read AND write a post, so…there’s that.
Y daughter came home the other day discussing this exact study. She and I “debated” the idea of creating what she called “Ignorance silos” with the algorithms from FaceBook and Google (yeah, she’s kinda smart for a 17 yo) pushing “relevant” content to you at every turn.
Her ultimate point was that given free will, people will eventually become exhausted with the same conversation regurgitating itself on every channel we are connected to and look for inspiration elsewhere…
Then we turned on the TV…
Point made.
Thanks for bringing this up for conversation, Margie!
Keep Cooking,
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef
@The Brand Chef That’s another facet that the study misses by only focusing on Facebook. Even if it’s true that you’re more likely to share “novel” content on Facebook, is that true for Twitter or Google Plus? As Matt said below, evidence seems to point to “probably not.” To me it feels like the study raises more questions versus answering any.
Mad props to your daughter!
There is a significant echo chamber in social media that exists in part because we are all fighting for the same traffic and because some people are incapable or unwilling to try to come up with new material.
I also attribute a certain amount to some bloggers who try to secure their platforms on the backs of the newbies. Some of them aren’t nearly as smart or insightful as they think but they haven’t been called to the carpet because they spend most of their time interacting with people who haven’t been doing this for a while.
@TheJackB Hmm. That last is a tantalizing tidbit, Mr. Jack.
In the end, social media is a pretty manipulative environment. People share content so that they can get on your radar, and you can put them on your radar, but at the same time it’s your content, written or previously shared, that is getting attention. It’s like a self-perpetuating cycle of self-promotion via puppetry. In order to pull yourself out, you either need to look for other people whose content you want to share and not worry as much about the radar thing, or on the other end, you need to start sharing others’ content rather than making it just about people sharing your stuff.
I was really bummed out when i figured that all out 🙂
@margieclayman It is hard to figure out how to be humble and modest in an environment that encourages you to be P.T. Barnum.
For example, I haven’t spoken at any of the blogger conferences so I haven’t gained the exposure that many other bloggers have and consequently I receive fewer offers to do/participate in certain things.
Some of those opportunities are filled by bloggers who haven’t been around, aren’t as good or have all but given up on blogging. It is the kind of thing that can chap your hide if you let it.
@TheJackB it *could* but we won’t let it 🙂
Wa-a-a-y late to the party, but great topic and I’m surprised how much the echo-chamber phenom is still unrecognized, even today. And dunno that FB is all that “representative” of it to begin with, especially when we currently have the ‘evidence’ of folks like the “Deniers’, conspiracy buffs, and even a candidate for POTUS like Trump… whose hardcore ‘viral’ popularity is a product of so many other venues (aka, blogs, the Blaze, forums, email lists, cable tv, websites devoted exclusively to <i>validating</i> very specific POV’s, etc.)!