This is not an evidence-based statement. Research has repeatedly found that claims of widespread echo chambers are overstated kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_elements…. The role of algorithms in promoting exposure to extreme or harmful content is also often overstated adl.org/media/15868/do….
There are many reasons for very serious concern about social media platforms but evidence-free assertions and moral panics about algorithms are not the way forward.
TLDR: Treating algorithms as the cause of and solution to all of life's problems is a bad approach to social media policy.
The same applies to content moderation! PS Always read @evelyndouek
Hard to keep up with this fast-changing field; SO much incredible work coming out that I totally overhaul it every year and can still cover just a fraction.
Also, the latest syllabus for my experiments in politics course where students and I design, conduct, & analyze a study together: sites.dartmouth.edu/nyhan/files/20…
Plausible that effects will be limited, but the fact that this legislation may generate offsetting turnout or efforts to mobilize voters does not make it in any way ok
Two things can be true:
-The voting restrictions under consideration are very bad and anti-democratic. They should be defeated.
-The scope of effects they will create is unknown. The voter ID literature, for instance, finds small negative effects, not permanent minority rule.
The first point DOES NOT DEPEND on the second. Anti-democratic laws are bad full stop even if the harms they inflict are not unbounded.
Structural disadvantages for urban voters, Democrats, etc. can be anti-democratic too. The question is not binary.