YANKI ODASI: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇERÇEVE

Author :  

Year-Number: 2022-Year: 15 - Number: 91
Yayımlanma Tarihi: 2022-09-17 13:35:21.0
Language : Türkçe
Konu : İletişim Çalışmaları
Number of pages: 457-474
Mendeley EndNote Alıntı Yap

Abstract

İnternetin ilk dönemleri, birey ve grupların kendini kolayca ifade edebilmesini sağlayarak demokratik toplum idealine ulaşmaya katkıda bulunacağı yolunda iyimser öngörüleri de beraberinde getirmiştir. Ancak, sanal dünyanın giderek benzer seslerin bir araya gelerek kendini karşıt görüşlere kapadığı homojen gruplarla dolmasıyla birlikte bu iyimser öngörüler de kaybolmaya başlamıştır. Yankı odaları olarak adlandırılan bu tür toplulukların varlığı internet öncesi döneme uzansa da blog, forum, sosyal medya gibi dijital ortamların ve kişiselleştirmeye imkân veren filtrelerin kullanıcıların internet ortamında kendini farklı seslere kapatmasını sağlayarak yankı odalarının oluşup varlığını sürdürmesini kolaylaştırdığı kabul edilmektedir. Grup üyelerinin alternatif görüşlere maruz kalmasını sınırlayan ve benzer seslerin sürekli yinelenerek pekişmesine imkân veren yapısıyla yankı odaları kutuplaşma, demokrasiye tehdit oluşturma, yanlış bilgilerin ve sahte haberlerin yayılmasını kolaylaştırma ve sapkın davranışları normalleştirme gibi olumsuz etkilere yol açmaktadır. Toplumsal diyalog ve uyum açısından zararlı bu etkileri azaltmak ise öncelikle bu tür toplulukların varlığını fark etmeyi gerektirmektedir. Konuya ilişkin farkındalığı artırmayı amaçlayan bu makalede yankı odalarının üzerinde tartışılarak eksiklikleri giderilecek kavramsal bir çerçevesi çıkarılmaya çalışılmıştır. Literatür taraması olarak hazırlanan çalışma kapsamında öncelikle yankı odası kavramı filtre balonu ve epistemik balon kavramlarıyla karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmış, ardından yankı odalarının özellikleri, ortaya çıkmalarına yol açan faktörler ve toplumsal etkileri ortaya konulmaya çalışılmış, son olarak da konuya ilişkin çözüm önerileri sunulmuştur.

Keywords

Abstract

The early days of the Internet brought with it some optimistic predictions that it would contribute to achieving the ideal of a democratic society by enabling individuals and groups to express their opinions easily. However, these optimistic predictions began to fade as the virtual world gradually filled with homogeneous groups, where similar voices came together and closed themselves to opposing views. Although the existence of such communities, called echo chambers, dates back to the pre-internet era, it is generally accepted that digital environments such as blogs, forums and social media sites as well as the filters that allow personalization enable users to shut themselves off to different voices in the Internet environment, making it easier for echo chambers to form and maintain their existence. Echo chambers, with their structure that limits the exposure of group members to opponent views and where similar voices are reinforced by repetition, lead to undesirable social effects such as polarization, posing a threat to democracy, facilitating the spread of false information and fake news, and normalizing deviant behaviour. Reducing the harmful effects in terms of social dialogue and cohesion first requires to be aware of such communities. This article, which aims to increase awareness on the subject, tries to draw a framework of echo chambers for stimulating discussions to overcome any shortcoming in it. In this review article, firstly the concept of echo chamber is discussed, then the characteristics of echo chambers, the factors that lead to their emergence and their social effects are tried to be revealed, and finally, some solutions are suggested.

Keywords


  • Amanullah, M. G. ve Dwisusilo, S. M. (2018). “Post-Truth and Echo Chamber Phenomena of Indonesian Social Media: Analysis of Political Contestation of Jokowi and Prabowo’s Supporters in Facebook”, International Conference on Language Phenomena in Multimodal Communication (KLUA 2018), 1719 Temmuz, Surabaya, Endonezya.

  • Bağcan, S.; Savaş, S. ve Tunçay, E. (2021). Sosyal Medyada Demokrasiye Lider Müdahalesini Gözlemlemek: 2020 ABD Başkanlık Seçimleri’nde Trump ve Biden’ın Tweetlerinin İçerik ve Duygu Analizi Açısından İncelenmesi. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 11(3), 1073-1097.

  • Barberá, P. 2020. Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization. (Editörler: N. Persily ve J. A. Tucker). Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field and Prospects for Reform İçinde (s. 34–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Benjamin, E. (2021). Echo Chambers and Crisis Epistemology: A Reply to Santos. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 10(1), 41-47.

  • Bensalah, M. (2021). Toward an Ethical Code of AI and Human Rights in Morocco. Arribat- – International Journal of Human Rights, 1(2), 187-203.

  • Binark, M. (2017). Algoritmaların Yarattığı Yankı Odalarında Siyasal Katılım Olanağı ya da Olanaksızlığı. Varlık Dergisi, 0(1317), 19-23.

  • Blex, C. ve Yasseri, T. (2020). Positive Algorithmic Bias Cannot Stop Fragmentation in Homophilic Networks. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 46(1), 80-97.

  • Boutyline, A. ve Willer, R. (2017). The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551–569.

  • Boyd, K. (2019) Epistemically Pernicious Groups and the Groupstrapping Problem. Social Epistemology, 33(1), 61-73.

  • Bright, J.; Marchal, N.; Ganesh, B. ve Rudinac, S. (2020). Echo Chambers Exist! (But they’re Full of Opposing Views). https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2001/2001.11461.pdf adresinden 16.06.2022 tarihinde erişildi.

  • Brown, E. (2019). Civic Education in the Post-truth Era: Intellectual Virtues and the Epistemic Threats of Social Media. (Ed.: Macleod, C. ve Tappolet, C.). Philosophical Perspectives on Moral and Civic Education İçinde (s. 45-67). New York: Routledge.

  • Bruns, A. (2019). It’s Not the Technology, Stupid: How the ‘Echo Chamber’ and ‘Filter Bubble’ Metaphors Have Failed Us. International Association for Media and Communication Research İçinde (s. 1–12). eprints.qut.edu.au adresinden 16.06.2022 tarihinde erişildi.

  • Chapman, T. (2019). Digital Democracy: Old Problems on New Devices?. Digital Debates CyFy Journal Volume 06, 46-51. Erişim Tarihi: 16 Haziran 2022, https://www.orfonline.org/

  • Cinelli, M.; Morales, G. D. F.; Galeazzi, A.; Quattrociocchi, W. ve Starnini, M. (2020). Echo Chambers on Social Media: A Comparative Analysis. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.09603.pdf adresinden 16.06.2022 tarihinde erişildi.

  • Colleoni, E.; Rozza, A. ve Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317-332.

  • Dahlgren, P. M. (2020). Media Echo Chambers: Selective Exposure and Confirmation Bias in Media Use, and its Consequences for Political Polarization, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İsveç: University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg.

  • Del Valle, M. E. ve Bravo, R. B. (2018). Echo Chambers in Parliamentary Twitter Networks: The Catalan Case. International Journal of Communication, 12(21), 1715–1735.

  • Del Vicario, M. (2016). The Role of Confirmation Bias in the Emergence of Echo Chambers: A Data-Driven Approach, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İtalya: IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Lucca.

  • Del Vicario, M.; Bessi, A.; Zollo, F.; Petroni, F.; Scala, A.; Caldarelli, G.; Stanley, H. E. ve Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). Echo Chambers in the Age of Misinformation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

  • Dubois, E. ve Blank, G. (2018). The Echo Chamber is Overstated: The Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729-745.

  • Erdoğan, İ. ve Alemdar, K. (2005). Öteki Kuram: Kitle İletişim Kuram ve Araştırmalarının Tarihsel ve Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirmesi. Ankara: Erk Yayınları.

  • Eytan B.; Messing, S. ve Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132.

  • Fernandez, M. ve Bellogin, A. (2020). “Recommender Systems and Misinformation: The Problem or the Solution?”, OHARS Workshop. 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 22-26 Eylül.

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. New York, NY: Row, Peterson.

  • Fletcher, R. ve Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Automated Serendipity. Digital Journalism, 6(8), 976-989.

  • Garrett, R. ve Resnick, P. (2011). Resisting Political Fragmentation on the Internet. Daedalus, 140(4), 108-120.

  • Geiß, S.; Magin, M.; Jürgens, P. ve Stark, B. (2021). Loopholes in the Echo Chambers: How the Echo Chamber Metaphor Oversimplifies the Effects of Information Gateways on Opinion Expression. Digital Journalism, 9(5), 660-686.

  • Gergen, K.J. (2008). Mobile Communication and the Transformation of the Democratic Process. (Ed.: J. E. Katz). Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies İçinde (s. 297–310). Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.

  • Geschke, D.; Lorenz, J. ve Holtz, P. (2019). The Triple-Filter Bubble: Using Agent-Based Modelling to Test a Meta-Theoretical Framework for the Emergence of Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 129–149.

  • Guess, A. M.; Lyons, Nyhan, B. ve Reifler, J. (2018). Avoiding the Echo Chamber about Echo Chambers: Why Selective Exposure to Like-Minded Political News Is Less Prevalent Than You Think. Miami, FL: Knight Foundation.

  • Hand, C. (2020). Filter Bubbles and You: The Promise and Perils of Technology. New York: Rosen YA.

  • Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter?. American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 1013-1057.

  • Iyengar, S. ve Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.

  • Jamieson, K. H. ve Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Janis, I. (1991). Groupthink. (Ed.: E. Griffin). A First Look at Communication Theory İçinde (s. 235-246). New York: McGrawHill.

  • Jeon, Y.; Kim, B.; Xiong, A.; Lee, D. ve Han, K. (2021). ChamberBreaker: Mitigating Echo Chamber Effects and Supporting Information Hygiene Through a Gamified Inoculation System. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–26.

  • Jiang, B.; Karami, M.; Cheng, L.; Black, T. ve Liu, H. (2021). Mechanisms and Attributes of Echo Chambers in Social Media. Erişim Tarihi: 17.06.2021, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.05401.pdf adresinden 17.06.2021

  • Justwan, F.; Baumgaertner, B.; Carlisle, J. E.; Clark, A. K. ve Clark, M. (2018). Social Media Echo Chambers and Satisfaction with Democracy Among Democrats and Republicans in the Aftermath of the 2016 US Elections. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 28(4), 1–19.

  • Key, V. O. (1966). The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

  • Khosravinik, M. (2017). Right Wing Populism in the West: Social Media Discourse and Echo Chambers. Insight Turkey 2017, 19(3), 53-68.

  • Kitchens, B.; Johnson, S. L. ve Gray, P. (2020). Understanding Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: The Impact of Social Media on Diversification and Partisan Shifts in News Consumption. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1– 32.

  • Krafft, P. M. ve Donovan, J. (2020). Disinformation by Design: The Use of Evidence Collages and Platform Filtering in a Media Manipulation Campaign. Political Communication, 37(2), 194-214.

  • Lawrence, E.; Sides, J. ve Farrell, H. (2010). Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics. Perspectives on Politics, 8(1), 141–157.

  • Lee-Won, R. J.; Shim, M.; Joo, Y. K. ve Park, S. G. (2014). Who Puts the Best “Face” Forward on Facebook? Positive Self-presentation in Online Social Networking and the Role of Self-Consciousness, Actualto-total Friends Ratio, and Culture. Computers in Human Behavior, 0(39), 413–423.

  • Lex, E.; Wagner, M. ve Kowald, D. (2018). "Mitigating Confirmation Bias on Twitter by Recommending Opposing Views”, European Symposium on Computational Social Science (ESCSS'2018). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.03901.pdf adresinden 17.07.2022 tarihinde erişildi.

  • Martinez, G. ve N. H. Tenev (2020). Optimal Echo Chambers. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.01249.pdf adresinden 17.09.2022 tarihinde erişildi.

  • Matz, S. C. (2021). Personal Echo Chambers: Openness-To-Experience is Linked to Higher Levels of Psychological Interest Diversity in Large-Scale Behavioural Data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(6), 1284-1300.

  • McPherson, J. M. ve Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to-face Groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 370-379.

  • McPherson, M.; Smith-Lovin, L. ve Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-444.

  • Merriam-Webster. (2022, 17 Temmuz). Echo-Chamber. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary İçinde. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/echo%20chamber adresinden 18.06.2022 tarihinde

  • Miguel, Kyle Dheric (2019). Birds of a Feather: Investigating the Policy-Issue Formation of Facebook Political Echo Chambers, (Yayımlanmamış Lisans Tezi), Manila, Filipinler: University of the Philippines.

  • Miller, B. ve Morris, R. G. (2016). Virtual Peer Effects in Social Learning Theory. Crime & Delinquency, 62(12), 1543–1569.

  • Mohseni, S. ve Ragan, E. (2018). Combating Fake News with Interpretable News Feed Algorithms. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.12349.pdf adresinden 17.06.2022 tarihinde erişildi.

  • Morini, V.; Pollacci, L. ve Rossetti, G. (2021). Toward a Standard Approach for Echo Chamber Detection: Reddit Case Study. Applied Sciences, 11(12), 53-90.

  • Munson, S. A., Lee, S. Y. ve Resnick, P. (2013). Encouraging Reading of Diverse Political Viewpoints with a Browser Widget. Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media İçinde (s. 419-428). Palo Alto, CA: The AAAI Press.

  • Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141-161.

  • Nguyen, H. C. ve Warren, P. (2017). The Propagation of Lies: Impeding the Spread of Misinformation by Identifying and Invading Echo Chambers in Networks Introduction and Objectives. http://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs224w-2017/projects/cs224w-18-final.pdf adresinden 17.06.2022

  • Nguyen, C. T. (2018). Escape the Echo Chamber. https://cs50.harvard.edu/x/2021/labs/10/chamber.pdf adresinden 17.07.2022 tarihinde erişildi.

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

  • Nourbakhsh, A.; Liu, X.; Li, Q. ve Shah, S. (2017). "Mapping the Echo-chamber: Detecting and Characterizing Partisan Networks on Twitter", Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, & Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, 5-8 Temmuz. Washington, USA.

  • Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Press.

  • Pedersen, M. Y. (2019). Polarization and Echo Chambers: A Logical Analysis of Balance and Triadic Closure in Social Networks, (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Amsterdam/Hollanda: Universiteit van Amsterdam.

  • Pettigrew, T. F.; Tropp, L. R.; Wagner, U. ve Christ, O. (2011). Recent Advances in Intergroup Contact Theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271‒280.

  • Quattrociocchi, W.; Scala, A. ve Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Echo Chambers on Facebook. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795110 adresinden 17.06.2022 tarihinde erişildi.

  • Rafee, A. A. (2020). Polarization on Social Media Platforms: Consequences for Politics and Security. (Ed.: S. M. Khasru). The Digital Age, Cyber Space, and Social Media: The Challenges of Security & Radicalization İçinde (s. 173-189). Dhaka: The Institute for Policy, Advocacy, and Governance (IPAG).

  • Rietdijk, N. (2021). Radicalizing Populism and the Making of an Echo Chamber. Krisis, 41(1), 114-134.

  • Santos, Breno R. G. (2021). Echo Chambers, Ignorance and Domination. Social Epistemology, 35(2), 109-119.

  • Schwarz, N.; Sanna, L. J.; Skurnik, I. ve Yoon, C. (2007). Metacognitive Experiences and the Intricacies of Setting People Straight: Implications for Debiasing and Public Information Campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 0(39), 127–161.

  • Semaan, B. C.; Robertson, S. P.; Douglas, S. ve Maruyama, M. (2014). “Social Media Supporting Political Deliberation across Multiple Public Spheres: Towards Depolarization”, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ’14), 15-19 Şubat, New York.

  • Shao, C.; Ciampaglia, G. L.; Varol, O.; Flammini, A. ve Menczer, F. (2017). The Spread of Misinformation by Social Bots. http://cs.furman.edu/~tallen/csc271/source/viralBot.pdf adresinden 17.07.2022 tarihinde

  • Shmargad, Y. ve Klar, S. (2019). How Partisan Online Environments Shape Communication with Political Outgroups. International Journal of Communication, 13(27), 2287–2313.

  • Stegmann, D.; Stark, B. ve Magin, M. (t.y.) Echo Chambers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354696366_Echo_Chambers adresinden 17.07.2022

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to Extremes: How like Minds Unite and Divide. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology, (4. Baskı). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.

  • Terren, L. ve Borge, R. (2021). Echo Chambers on Social Media: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Review of Communication Research, 0(9), 99-118.

  • Vaccari, C.; Valeriani, A.; Barberá, P.; Jost, J. T.; Nagler, J. ve Tucker, J. A. (2016). Of Echo Chambers and Contrarian Clubs: Exposure to Political Disagreement among German and Italian Users of Twitter. Social Media and Society, 2(3), 1–24.

  • Walter, S.; Brüggemann, M. ve Engesser, S. (2018). Echo Chambers of Denial: Explaining User Comments on Climate Change. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 204-217.

  • Williams, H. T. P.; McMurray, J. R.; Kurz, T. ve Hugo Lambert, F. (2015). Network Analysis Reveals Open Forums and Echo Chambers in Social Media Discussions of Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 0(32), 126–138.

  • Wojcieszak, M. (2010). Don’t Talk to Me: Effects of Ideologically Homogeneous Online Groups and Politically Dissimilar Offline Ties on Extremism. New Media and Society, 12(4), 637–55.

  • Zeichner, K. ve Conklin, H. G. (2017). Beyond Knowledge Ventriloquism and Echo Chambers: Raising the Quality of the Debate in Teacher Education. Teachers College Record, 118(12), 1–38.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
  • Article Statistics