>The commercialized mass press expanded the public sphere,

>>2320016
Habermas also fully understood how the internet worked. He argued in 2008 when everyone else was hyping how internet and social media in particular would make people more politically aware, that it actually causes a differentiation of the public sphere into smaller sub-spheres that are only marginally connected to the public strings of debate, thus undermining the public discourse and not contributing to it, perfectly predicting the concept of echo-chamber before it had fully manifested as we see it today.

>>2320565
Echo-chambers are a myth.

>>2320565
>a person who has been exposed to all sides and arguments sooner or later takes a position
>several people like this exist
>they go to the same website because they already passed the debate stage - now they want to relax with like-minded people
>some younglin' comes to their "echo-chamber" and regurgitates the talking point they have heard and debunked numerous times
>the people in the "echo-chamber" roll their eyes and make fun of him
>the younglin' leaves frustrated as he couldn't change anyone's opinion and asserts that the echo-chamber ignores facts and that echo-chambers are a problem

>>2320570
>some younglin' comes to their "echo-chamber" and regurgitates the talking point they have heard and debunked numerous times
If they actually had debunked the talking points in the past they could easily do so again. In fact, they should have the advantage over the inexperienced "younglin".

But this is not the case.

Echochambers form around fringe opinions. They withdraw from public discourse for the very reason that their views are highly controversial and could not withstand proper scrutiny.

>and that echo-chambers are a problem
They are, because you have all these people getting lost in their delusions because there's nobody to confront them with reality.

>>2320591
>If they actually had debunked the talking points in the past they could easily do so again.
Nah. There's a point where you get tired of having the same argument a million times and you realize arguments don't change anything unless it's very close to an election. It's funnier to make fun of your opponent.

>They withdraw from public discourse for the very reason that their views are highly controversial and could not withstand proper scrutiny.
This is just wishful thinking on your part. There are so-called echo chamber for every ideology, so I guess no ideology can withstand proper scrutiny.

>>2320016
>no ideology can withstand proper scrutiny
This is correct.

>>2320566
Says Anon on a Mongolian shepherding internet forum

>>2320627
There's a stream of argument and counter-argument for every issue too. Disagreements between ideologies are often rooted on principles, not facts.

>>2320622
>There's a point where you get tired of having the same argument a million times and you realize arguments don't change anything unless it's very close to an election. It's funnier to make fun of your opponent.
And this is exactly why the progressive left has lost and Donald J. Trump is president of the United States.

>>2320622
>There's a point where you get tired of having the same argument a million times and you realize arguments don't change anything unless it's very close to an election. It's funnier to make fun of your opponent.
To me this looks more like the behaviour of people who don't have reason on their side. If your opponent is wrong and you know where he is wrong then you should be able to take apart his argument. If you can't do that, then the problem lies not with him but with your own insufficient arguments. And this is also the reason why people withdraw into their echo-chambers in the first place.

>There are so-called echo chamber for every ideology, so I guess no ideology can withstand proper scrutiny.
Which is the very problem with echo-chambers. People withdraw from public debate and anything that could threaten their world view to the point where they get lost in their own delusions.