Read on Twitter
Regular reminder that many assumptions treated as fact in elite debate on today's media are directly contradicted by evidence in some great peer reviewed academic research
Echo chambers? Not so much
Filter bubbles? Not really
Fragmentation? Nah
Screen-time a problem? Not clear https://twitter.com/andyguess/status/1283516615729065987
Echo chambers? Not so much
Filter bubbles? Not really
Fragmentation? Nah
Screen-time a problem? Not clear https://twitter.com/andyguess/status/1283516615729065987
On echo chambers, in addition to the important paper above from @andyguess, see e.g. @lizdubois and Grant Blank here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
On filter bubbles, see e.g. @dragz and I here https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444817724170 and @flaxter et al here https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/80/S1/298/2223402
Fragmentation, then? Again, how about @dragz and I https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/4/476/4642154 or pioneering work by Jim Webster including this study with Thomas Ksiazek https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/62/1/39/4085792
Screen time as a problem? Read @OrbenAmy and @ShuhBillSkee https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1?fbclid=IwAR1lIDoLwZ_932NKLOYn07IrwI23kPw6h0WPROZh11JP6PukPaIKH0L7Urs or years of work by @Livingstone_S and others.
