I don't use Facebook, so I can't say about that. I don't really go on-line for political discussion at all.
The idea that we somehow will be able to encounter a diverse range of opinions we disagree with but we are open to from people outside our tribe is asking a whole lot from both you and the outsiders.
Finding other sources of community and content that isn't centered around a feed is a good idea as well.
There are multiple other factors beyond algo or yourself. 1 study I saw proving echo chambers used reddit r/history where their moderators enforce an echo chamber on purpose. They go way beyond banning viewpoints like holocaust denial. Even basic misunderstandings of non-controversial history are banned. Thus resulting in a objective echo chamber.
That same study went to look at more controversial subs and places like r/canada where moderators ban people for viewpoints they too have an objective echo chamber.
From my point of view echo chambers have been objectively proven to exist. In some cases that's the intention but ultimately echo chambers certainly exist.
I don't really believe people want out of echo chambers as much as they say they do. I don't find many conservatives dabbling in Modern Monetary Theory or many liberals trying to solve problems in rural America that already don't afflict their own groups. They're quite content sitting just where they are and continuing to justify their disinterest in the rest of the world. In this vein, I don't think what they're in is really an echo chamber. These kind of people seem to be geared more towards getting others to see what they see in their own interests/causes/etc... and if you just aren't that interested, then you're maybe not an enemy but certainly not a friend or maybe even a likable stranger.
I started off with politics as an example because it's the first place I noticed this behavior, but it really stretches into any vein of interest that people have. There's entire rivalries that form around online personas or ideologies in a given domain that are just as divisive as politics, however, they stay penned up in their own domain so you only come across them when you're in communities of a certain mass.
Try to run from whatever this is all you want. The only way I started making friends (and trusting) people of different persuasions and lifestyles from mine was getting out in the real world again.
But I'm not sure that the "slice" of the internet I'm exposed to is the best one for me. Especially over a long enough time period. I'm in a different season of life than I was in high school or college. But there's quite a bit of "inertia" behind these algorithms that keep me coming back to the same content I read back then (5-10 years ago).
I don't think there's a good set of digital tools out there for saying "I want off the ride." Or at least "I'd like to ride a different ride for a minute."
I think if we want to enable self-educators, there has to be a better suite of tools available to those who want to be presented with diverse ideas.
Just my 2 cents.
+1 for getting out in the real world.
I would put myself in that category -- at least up to a certain (limited) percentage of my media-consuming time.
1) It's all echo chambers everywhere. It's just a matter of which you pick.
2) Finding/identifying high quality echo chambers with mind-opening discussion is hard especially when you are not an insider
3) You might find a bubble you like OK and then suddenly the bubble is talking enthusiastically about how, yup, cyclists pretty much deserve to die. Well, you happen to be a (law-abiding) cyclist, and by god that hurts to hear.
I've found if I want to continue seeing the best in everyone, there's a portion of the population I just shouldn't talk to. At least online.
Politics, religion, sports, nationality, money, and women are the given topics of trolling. That's where you will find all of the echo chambers and controversy.
Politics are easy targets because American politics are tremendously volatile. The USA has been at war longer than ever before. Obama got into power talking about ending wars(he earnt the nobel peace prize because of this) but instead he started multiple new wars. He killed people in at least 8 known countries under his orders.
Trump then got into power never really saying he was going to end any wars but at least he didnt start new ones? He was awfully close to multiple new ones. What did he do instead? He bullied the USA's allies.
The USA has ptsd and is finding enemies everywhere they go.
Will biden be different? Lol no chance. He already ordered a battalion back into syria and he's fabricating reasons to go to war with iran.
