Kite News

> World doesn't live in echo chambers. The reality emerges from the collision of different viewpoints and perspectives - that's how we separate signal from noise

To be honest, when people start talking about "echo chambers" it's usually because they are upset that I won't listen to bigoted alt-right hate.

For me this term has gained a really negative connotation. I understand the problem but hearing the same tired ranty talking points repeated is not helping my state of mind. If that means I am in an "echo chamber", so be it. Alternative viewpoints, fine, when there is something to build on. But there are limits. When differences in opinion are too extreme debating them is only causing agitation and polarisation, in my experience.

I understand the point but I wouldn't use the term "echo chamber" anymore.

I like this service by the way. I've been thinking of making something myself by using an AI to filter news feeds by the topics I'd be interested in. Edit: Just found out it is very configurable, that's great! My original point was that the default is very US centric in its news choice but this can be simply modified.

> when people start talking about "echo chambers" it's usually because they are upset that I won't listen to bigoted alt-right hate

Maybe you're in an echo chamber when it comes to echo chambers then? I usually hear the term related to social media algorithms, and usually implied is that we're all being chambered, left, right or otherwise.

I get where you are going and I do agree with you, but I think there is some validity to still calling it an echo chamber.

For example, I live in Boston and very liberal. I did not grow up in this area though, and I have noticed that among some of my friends that have... they have zero idea what most of this country is actually like. Even just other more moderate liberal people that don't have the "luxury" of living in a big city that largely shields us. Something that I feel like we saw in particular during the last election.

I totally get not caring about, and not wanting to see, the alt-right hate. I don't want to be constantly reminded that people hate me just for existing.

I am not sure what an alterative word for this is, and I think it goes farther than just trying to tune out the alt-right hate.

> when people start talking about "echo chambers" it's usually because they are upset that I won't listen to bigoted alt-right hate.

Funny, I think usually see it in the context of people who are upset that people are stuck listening to what they perceive as bigoted alt-right hate.

> Alternative viewpoints, fine. But there are limits

I've found that, in my Twitter feed curation anyways, I like having people around who I agree with on some things but disagree on other things. Or, I need to have some kind of a personal connection to them. Either way, there needs to be something to bridge who I am now to the stuff I disagree with. If it's not there then the stuff I disagree with will never make sense or land, and hanging around it will either turn me off even more or just stress me out, like you're saying.

I think that's a fair way to strike the balance.

I grew up in a rural area and the same phenomenon happens against cities.

The idea that a city is comprised of human beings, just living closer together, really doesn’t compute for some people for some reason.

I think everyone would be better off trying to understand how others live.

There are echo chambers on both ends of the political spectrum (and for various subcultures) but it’s obvious they are real if you are in the centre and find yourself politically homeless between two progressively extreme groups who are doing the same shit with different flavours.

Echo chambers exist in all communities, and you may be in one whether or not you're aware of it. The only way to step outside of them, if you're at all interested in doing so, is to experience what's happening in other communities.

Sometimes those external viewpoints are extreme, and your instinct might be to ignore them. But I would rather know that they exist and what they are, than to completely isolate myself from them. Isolation only leads to worsening of the effects caused by echo chambers (us vs. them mentality, resentment, hatred, etc.). The antidote is awareness, which eventually could lead to communication, which eventually could lead to acceptance and tolerance, which eventually could lead to Kumbaya and a happier place to live for everyone.

To be honest, I'm nowhere near this acceptance path as I would like to be. But I think it's the only solution to the divisiveness and tribalism that has been part of humanity since the beginning. Part of me is hopeful that we will eventually overcome this nature and learn to coexist peacefully. Tragically, the technology we've built that was meant to bring us together, has only driven us further apart.

Anyway, this is a great initiative by Kagi. 100% spot on about the problems, and the approach seems reasonable. I've been meaning to start consuming news from ground.news as well, which is another attempt at fixing these issues. Best of luck to them both.

> I understand the point but I wouldn't use the term "echo chamber" anymore.

This doesn't sound it would accomplish much. You're essentially starting a euphemism treadmill. Start calling it a foo, right-wingers will start complaining that everything is a foo.

The solution is learning (and teaching others) that if a term is co-opted by a group who abuse it for their own goals, that doesn't retroactively change the intended meaning when the term is used by other groups in good faith. It's obvious what Kagi meant here, and that's all that should matter.

> To be honest, when people start talking about "echo chambers" it's usually because they are upset that I won't listen to bigoted alt-right hate.

Good observation! Just like people who talk about peace treaties or cease fires are always enemy agents trying to weaken our resolve. But they can't fool you and me, we're smarter than that.

The best way to avoid echo chambers is to actively seek out a mix of perspectives, even the ones you don’t agree with. But only very intelligent people do this. A tool like this can help by providing multiple sources and showing different sides.

However, this tool doesn't let you ask questions or dig deeper into the context, it's mostly summaries and headlines. Asking questions is actually one of the best ways to avoid echo chambers. But then again, whoever controls the model controls the narrative. That's exactly why Google and Microsoft have poured billions into this tech. Without Microsoft's infra (and "the Gates demo"), ChatGPT probably wouldn't even exist, or it'd just be another research project.

The only downside I see in trying to improve news is that news conglomerates often sue developers or big tech companies. Google, for example, was sued over its Google News operations.

> To be honest, when people start talking about "echo chambers" it's usually because they are upset that I won't listen to bigoted alt-right hate.

Agreed, though they aren't necessarily using that term in recent years. Nowadays they tend to use terms that evoke "echo chamber" without actually saying it, like "woke mind virus" and "groupthink". And while I agree with some of the other comments that "echo chamber" has since been more used to refer to algorithms, this might be a result of being on Hacker News, which is an echo chamber in itself. I do have a somewhat instinctual aversion to the term "echo chamber" though given its prolific use as a thought-terminating cliche.

For additional context, it's difficult to separate press releases by Kagi from the views of its founder, who has been criticized[0] for partnering with Yandex after Russia invaded Ukraine, and for other statements involving politics and tech[1].

[0]: https://ioc.exchange/@troed/113311981054448887

[1]: https://chaos.social/@scy/111704636274463611

Having said that, I honestly believe the world needs more founders like Vladimir Prelovac. Once this product is out, I'll be more than happy to pay for it and support it.

Didn't know that. Kagi has been added to never touch pile.

Is it partnership or do they just simply use yandex as a data-feed among many other sources?

It's refreshing to see that the Kagi founder isn't on a political correctness crusade and chooses to focus on product.

> talking about "echo chambers" it's usually because they are upset that I won't listen to bigoted alt-right hate.

All I can say is America and its region of influence is in its own set of echo chambers

That "politics and tech" thread made me trust Kagi more, not less.

There is no such thing as being apolitical. "Just focusing on the product" is implicitly supporting the status quo.

> It's refreshing to see that the Kagi founder isn't on a political correctness crusade and chooses to focus on product.

What does waging wars and committing war crimes have to do with political correctness? Please help me understand. Besides, Kagi is heavily politicized, their moto is "humanize the web". Can't really see how one can be for humanizing the web when they have no problems financing regimes that dehumanize actual humans.

Hope you don't use any Google/Amazon products or any product that uses Google/Amazon products then.

Don't worry, the first link I clicked, by chance, was this super well-balanced article: https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/07/09/big-beautiful-test-of...

/s

> As always, Democrats tried to demonize spending reductions as attacks on the poor, though any voter who looks at what the bill actually says will find commonsense reforms

> the BBB helps families tremendously

> Democrats have spent a decade praying Trump would shatter the Republican coalition, but instead he’s strengthened it, clarifying the party’s aims and defying the fringes.

> He listens to libertarians and family-policy engineers, but he wouldn’t allow narrow concerns to veto a bill that protects the border and lowers taxes for essentially everyone.

Glad I got a perfectly well-balanced look at the pros and cons of this piece of legislation.

Yandex is connected to Russia's government similarly to how Google/Microsoft/Amazon/etc are connected to US's government, and perhaps Israel's government. Should he stop dealing with those companies too?

Reciprocally though, the mainstreamification of alternative facts has been a constant drumbeat for a decade now.

'Go find your own news/views/facts! The mainstream is bad! The echo chambers: oh no!'

I definitely want a massive diversity of views and opinions. But I'm severely anti-interested in people crusading against consensual reality, anyone who seems to dance around truth. So many alternate views obscure reality.

It's not scalable to go assess all points of view (as how RFK proposed for how individuals should approach medicine). There aren't feedback measures broad enough to delve into whether these are true realities or fabricated ones. There aren't signals abundant enough, we don't share broadly as a public or have trusted agents to help us navigate truth from untruth if we wander broadly. I'd like to see more accountability, more ways of the public registering its own back reaction, its own trust or distrust responses, that anyone can check out

There's so much villainy, so much preying upon people's attention, ruling them up. And telling people that truth is a lie, that the main story is false, that there's a secret truth out there: it's an incredible lure that hooks so many in, and that ability to lie and fabricate is breaking civilization, and breaking people's hearts and minds. The people spinning these bespoke alternate realities are one of the top threats to civilization & order & reason & our decency today.

i honestly don't see much different between this and for example using windows whilst Microsoft is providing the compute that powers the ongoing genocide in Gaza. I Observe the BDS boycot by not giving MS money directly but avoiding all the companies that use Microsoft would be kinda ridiculous

> if you are in the centre and find yourself politically homeless

This is also an echo chamber

Tell me more about how there are two "progressively extreme groups" but also "doing the same shit".

How do you get more centrist and status quo than freaking joe biden, hillary clinton and kamala harris? Name one "extreme" position they held.

You say this like you think you're making some kind of clever point.

Just to pick one easy example, the confederate states of america employed agents to advocate for peace treaties and cease fires during the civil war. By all reasonable classifications, they were "enemy agents trying to weaken our resolve".

Would some people have benefitted from a peace treaty? Of course. Would everyone have benefitted equally? Obviously not.

Extreme in their lack of interest or tolerance of opposing viewpoints that drowns out meaningful conversation.

The kind of thing that allowed Biden to get so far into the re-election cycle, etc. My favorite recent example is one ive heard from numerous people in real life, is suggesting that the main reason Kamala lost was because she was a woman. Or confusion at all the Texas border counties flipping to Trump. Dems dropped the ball in so many obvious ways and its deeply frustrating that its still difficult to have serious conversations about it. The reality is many of my left leaning friends are still deep in echo chambers they can barely see; its quite different from my right leaning friends who feel a bit closer to delusional on a few particular issues (ie consistently discard and avoid incorporating relatively mundane facts such as low murder rates vs "this is the most dangerous time ever for a child to be outside").

Exactly, I'm with you. People who claim to "advocate for moderation" or for "depolarization" are always enemy agents or AI bots who get paid a salary from the enemy to try to weaken us. We must stand firm in our psychological self defence, and only listen to verified and trusted sources and people. We have to diligently prune our friend groups and family from those who have been infected with wrongthink and started working for the enemy. They get together when we think they're at the dentist to plot against us, it could even be your own spouse!

> when people start talking about "echo chambers" it's usually because they are upset that I won't listen

Probably not "upset", per se. Most likely frustrated that you bother weighing in on topics for which you maintain a deliberately narrow view.

I agree that the intentional spreading of disinformation is harmful to civilized discourse. It's definitely not practical to give it the same attention as you would factual information. But I think we can do something about it.

The reason disinformation dominates our communication channels is because the people who engage in it are given the same voice and platform as reliable sources of information. I'm not a believer in censorship or deplatforming, but we should attack this from the other side. Make factual sources even more prominent, give them more visibility, and make the signal louder than the noise. The way to fight (m|d)isinformation is to drown it with factual information.

The first step towards this is to establish trustworthy sources of information, both in the form of traditional media and online. This can be done by making news outlets non-profit public services, and journalism a licensed profession. An international standards body with independent oversight can be established to hold official news outlets accountable. By removing the profit incentives and ensuring that reporting is done with transparency and integrity, the public will rely on official sources more than random social media influencers. The noise will continue to exist, but it won't matter if people know who can be trusted.

I don't see another way out of our current situation. Those who believe that the truth will float to the top among the noise, and that people are smart enough to tell them apart, are deluding themselves. This will only get worse now that we have AI out in the wild, and it's easier than ever to generate content that appears accurate. If nothing is done about this we will continue to regress into chaos, while the 1% in power only grow richer and more powerful. Perhaps we are past the point of no return already.

every downvote is proving my point :)

I said this before in another comment a while ago, but we have echo chambers in real life: they're called friends.

I won't be friends with assholes, but, for some reason, there's this sort of expectation to humor crazy people. I'd rather just call you crazy and move on. Bonus points if we don't interact in the first place.

Jesus Christ, the sarcasm is thick. You even used the word "wrongthink".

It's not a conspiracy or anything like you're describing, it's that moderate politics is often just... wrong. Believe it or not, there's sometimes a right answer, and a wrong answer. And if you go "in the middle" you end up being wrong.

I mean, take a small gander a history. There's usually a right answer... and a wrong one. Typically, in the moment, the people don't know that. So some construct middle-ground that they believe seems reasonable. Then, we look back on it, and say "what the fuck were you thinking". And that's how we end up with bullshit like the 3/5ths compromise. Seriously, what the fuck was that?

Point being, simply being moderate or depolarized doesn't save you. Consider that, in some countries right now, moderate positions are pro-genocide. Because that's how far gone the politics in said country are.

I don't think anyone thought the 3/5s compromise was morally correct, people either didn't care or were willing to live with it in pursuit of another goal.

Also, as you said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation there's a name for it!

The point I'm making, which you are either unable or unwilling to grasp, is that being moderate is not the same thing as being correct. Sometimes the right position is an extreme one. Fighting hitler is a pretty easy example.

There's a particularly annoying form of cowardice that involves refusing to take a position and then pretending this is some kind of moral high ground.

> Extreme in their lack of interest or tolerance of opposing viewpoints that drowns out meaningful conversation.

Again, this is.. biden or kamala or clinton? Are the people in power in this political power advocating for extreme positions or acting intolerantly?

Is it intolerant to refuse to consider the idea of deporting 65 million american citizens of latino descent? What is the correct response for this in your world?

As for Dems and balldropping, this is an extremely complicated subject that is way too broad and deep for this little text box, but before any discussion took place, I'd have to advance the argument that, given the behaviour of the various major news organisations during the last decade or so, I'd have to ask, were people voting based on what democrats actually did, or what they were told they did?

I liked Josh Barro's characterization of BlueSky: "Bluesky Isn't a Bubble. It's a Containment Dome."[0]

[0] https://www.joshbarro.com/p/bluesky-isnt-a-bubble-its-a-cont...

> Again, this is.. biden or kamala or clinton?

The state of the left in general, which is effectively what led to Kamala (a bad candidate) leading the Democratic Party instead of someone that had a more legitimate chance of winning. The example I provided was the (otherwise smart) people I know saying "We just can't have a woman candidate" as though _that_ were the reason she lost. It's difficult to have that conversation - they look at you like a complete jerk when you suggest... no that's not the reason she lost. Which is what OP was getting at.

> Is it intolerant to refuse to consider the idea of deporting 65 million american citizens of latino descent? What is the correct response for this in your world?

What is the intent of this exactly? This isn't the issue swing voters I know of reference in thinking Biden / D's were bad on immigration. They would refer to the surge in (illegal) immigration.

> I'd have to ask, were people voting based on what democrats actually did, or what they were told they did?

One of (or the?) Kamala's first network appearance involved her opening with responding to "What would you do different" with "Nothing in particular... and I was involved in a lot of the important decisions". It is difficult to even imagine what would lead to her saying such a thing if not an echo chamber but, certainly that kind of thing impacted a lot of swing voters. 2020-2024 was a very bad time for a lot of people. You need to tackle that head on.

> I don't think anyone thought the 3/5s compromise was morally correct

I disagree, they absolutely thought it was morally correct because morals progress throughout history.

What I think people miss is that slavers were evil people doing evil things. No, they were normal people doing normal things. And that's much more scary.