It's a symptom.

You're not seeing the connection because you aren't thinking at a high enough level of abstraction. The entire social media and entertainment edifice is built on the objective of telling you what you want to hear. This basically generates a rapidly polarizing schism with a tendency toward radicalization, anda natural aversion toward established info sources on course correction, because if they didn't get it right the first time, or second, or third time, then why give the benefit of a doubt?

You can argue these people weren't looking for truth in thefirst place, but you're missing out on that the "Truth" is not the same to all people, and as it turns out, you rely on the fluid nature of non-bubbled organization and communication to ground disruptive social energy and disharmony.

> The entire social media and entertainment edifice is built on the objective of telling you what you want to hear.

I agree. See my comment here[1]. I simply don't see how that is the result or evidence of too little free speech. The opposite seems true. The problem isn't that people can't say what they believe. It is that people have the freedom to knowingly lie in order to corrupt the beliefs of others.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662297

they were forced into echo chambers because mainstream channels are their own echo chambers.

thus the 2 realities the top post is referring to.

They didn't leave the mainstream channels because they weren't allowed to speak. They left the mainstream channels because truth was not compatible with their worldview.

Ah, but is there any avenue for you to speak to them?

No, because they left the mainstream channels. I am still watching the same basic channels, following the same basic reporters, and reading the same basic news that I did 5 or 10 years ago. They are the ones who left for alternatives. Just look at the recent moves from Fox News to OAN or Newsmax. They will go wherever they hear what they want to hear. If I went to those places to talk to them, they would go somewhere else.

Have you tried any other sources? Because if you actually had, it's not that they're telling people what they want to hear. It's that they're showing the exact same things, except with the full clips and contexts.

Go watch the George Floyd body cameras. All of them. The full 1 hour (30 min per officer). The story is ENTIRELY different than the one that was fed to us.

This wasn't about George Floyd. It was about who won the election. What are your "other sources" saying about that?

The mainstream channels have constantly and blatantly lied to us about absolutely everything. Or have you forgotten Weapons of Mass Destruction, 15 days to flatten the curve, or the complete silencing of the Hunter Biden story (and it turns out he IS under active FBI investigation).

People don't trust those channels because it's so easy to look at literally any other non-mainstream source to see how we've been constantly lied to.

I think your underestimating how much of this is on mainstream news channels. Watching CNN arguably part of the liberal media you can hear people question the validity of the election an put forth conspiracy theories.

“Sudden discovery of 50 thousand votes”, and suggestions that “Democratic counties reporting last” means they can arbitrarily add votes as needed.

This isn’t some extreme view it’s being endorsed by both elected officials and pundits. I am genuinely concerned that people have forgotten just how fragile democracy is and are trying to score political points at the expense of critical institutions.

> I am genuinely concerned that people have forgotten just how fragile democracy is and are trying to score political points at the expense of critical institutions.

That's assuming the losing minority still wants democracy. Maybe they just want King-for-Life Trump.

an alternative hypothesis is that they voluntarily isolated themselves into echo chambers because they didn't like the reality that the mainstream news was reporting

Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean you were "forced" into believing falsehoods.

News outlets act like they have a monopoly on truth, which you even believe, yet it's the truth about useless facts. Get CNN or Breitbart to report on Apple child labor, expose wall street, or expose the impact of consumer products on the environment and then I'll listen.

political news is a waste of time and probably a net negative for an individual. That's MY truth which you won't find on CNN or breitbart's twitter feed.

I actively avoid political news (it sucks it is showing up here on HN).

CNN does cover apple child labor: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/tech/apple-microsoft-tesla-de... and consumder products on environment: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/world/plastic-pollution-2040-...

EDIT: I don't like CNN fwiw.

CNN Business and CNN World are different than the main CNN Politics tv channel, right?

I was mainly talking about political news, I do occasionally browse some mainstream business news.

> CNN Business and CNN World are different than the main CNN Politics tv channel, right?

There is no “CNN Politics” TV channel, nor is there a “CNN World” (“CNN International” is a thing, though) or “CNN Business” (there used to be CNNfn, but its been gone for more than a decade) channel.

“Business”, “Politics”, and “World” are sections of the CNN website; the corresponding content would generally all be covered, on TV, by the main CNN channel.

The truth is most news and media organizations who have established television networks (MSNBC, CNN, FOX, Whatever else) also have separate editorial for linear programming and digital news. They don't serve the same purpose or the same audience. It's why you can find CNN digital as less biased than CNN linear or Fox News digital might call a state early because their analysis says one thing but the talking heads say another.

Why would Apple's labor violations be under CNN Politics? Apple is a business, not a political party.

Yup. Which is why I avoid political news and think it's pointless for most people.

The current nature of information flow made it easy for them to lie to each other. It isolated them from opposing viewpoints, so they went into an echo chamber of their own.

This is always the problem with suppressed speech. Nonsense will still be spewed, but no one reasonable gets a chance to counter it with analysis and cool it down.

Zeitgeist is broken.

Their speech wasn't suppressed. It was simply that they didn't want to hear reality. CNN almost never turns away national politicians. The Sunday politics shows constantly have balanced or right leaning panels. They aren't being silenced. They just want to go somewhere that tells them what they want to hear.