people think echo chambers are inevitable in social networks

let’s explore…

making a big community that feels small 
plexus.substack.com

But in a contribution based social network (~BeReal) the tide turns.

The way to connect with others through contribution is not to contribute the same stuff as everyone else. Your participation would feel trivial, help no one, and earn you no cred.

The way to connect with others, through contribution, is to contribute new content. Content that’s interesting and that adds onto what’s been said before.

In a contribution based system, echo chambers would break down.

There are common sense reasons to doubt that contribution could ever be as popular a mode of social network participation as consumption. We’re all sorta agreement seeking dopamine hitters, right?

Sometimes, but the key that’s overlooked: not always.

Though finding agreement is nice, it leaves you feeling (1) indistinct in your sense of self, (2) bored, and (3) without progress on your problems.

A contribution based social network where people seek new helpful content is around the corner, and it may have no echo chambers.

In a feed-based social network, optimized for engagement (ads) and designed for consumption, echo chambers are inevitable. 

People want to connect with others, and the way to connect  through consumption is to consume the same content. #echochamber