←back to thread

Kite News

(kite.kagi.com)
178 points tigroferoce | 3 comments | 10 Jul 25 07:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.771s | source
Show context
wkat4242 ◴[10 Jul 25 11:42 UTC] No.44519877[source]▶
> 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.

replies(14): >>44519976 #>>44520002 #>>44520010 #>>44520137 #>>44520155 #>>44520165 #>>44520220 #>>44520265 #>>44520302 #>>44520583 #>>44521023 #>>44524197 #>>44526114 #>>44533561 #
newsclues ◴[10 Jul 25 12:16 UTC] No.44520137[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>44521848 #>>44523092 #
wredcoll ◴[10 Jul 25 17:03 UTC] No.44523092[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>44523672 #
1. cloverich ◴[10 Jul 25 17:55 UTC] No.44523672[source]▶
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").

replies(1): >>44527798 #
2. wredcoll ◴[11 Jul 25 02:10 UTC] No.44527798[source]▶
> 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?

replies(1): >>44536880 #
3. cloverich ◴[11 Jul 25 21:19 UTC] No.44536880[source]▶
> 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.