While information bubbles have existed as long as people had a choice, at least with a newspaper or TV channel, you have to read and watch a little to understand whether it fits your liking. You have to put some effort in.

With recommendation engines, your bubble, without effort, ossifies.

There is no such thing as unbiased. So they have top pick how they are going to be biased. My guess is the way that makes the most ad revenue irrespective of ideology.

I think personalized media might bring information bubbles to a whole new level because recommendation systems are more efficient and achieving millions of YouTube views has arguably fewer intellectual hurdles than achieving similar reading rates via print or TV. The information passes though fewer filters (none), e.g. proof readers, team discussions. If that causes an increase of misinformation, then it is on Google to fix it, i.e. to reduce the amount of misinformation at least to pre-YouTube levels.

Ah good old moral relativism.

Isn't the concept of an "information bubble" already inherently relativistic? sevenless was simply pointing out the relativism cuts both ways.

I was just pointing out the obvious.

As opposed to planting your flag in the ground that your camp is always right and the outgroup is evil?

As opposed to at least trying to think a bit.

If you think relativism is fine. Then "As opposed to planting your flag in the ground that your camp is always right and the outgroup is evil?" is also fine.

See how silly and immediately self-contradictory relativism is?

"Trying to think a bit" would be on the side of having more information to think about, I'd imagine. Absolute relativism is a strawman you've brought into it, political tribalism is on the other hand a very real thing.

Ah good ole' sociopathy