Which is more dangerous, echo chamber or thought police?

"Social media platforms give us the ability to mute opinions we'd rather not hear," wrote R Matthan. We delete any news item that we do not agree with. This is picked up by the algorithms which remove such items form future content we receive. "This results in permanently blocking content form anyone whose belief system differs from ours, allowing us to choose to not hear what they say rather than deal with the discomfort of having distasteful views clutter our newsfeed." So we interact only with people we agree with. On social media, this is known as an echo chamber which is said to be a source of fake news. If people associate only with those they agree we end up with a sharply divided Balkanised society. On the other hand, some studies have shown that most people tend to read divergent political views online, though that may not change their opinions. There is no such thing as objectivity as "Donald Trump has exposed US intellectuals and the most hallowed brands of American journalism, like the New York Times, as being incapable of objectivity when things don't go their way", wrote M Joseph. "They had consistently underestimated his popularity when he was running for president, and have since reported on his presidency with venom." In an effort to be objective journalists resort to 'balance' wherein they report opposing views but then try to nudge readers to agree with their own view. Richard Thaler won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2017 with his 'nudge theory' which shows how people can be made to change their behavior by subtly changing their options. The other way to appear to be objective is through 'over-compensation' in which liberals use more extreme language to condemn a terrorist attack to compensate for their support of a certain community. Denouncing social media for fake news politicians try to censor content to impose their own version of 'truth', thus taking away our right to free speech, wrote K Wagner. But, what is truth? "For this word is a religious concept not a scientific one," wrote D Pattanaik. "In science, there is no truth, there are only measurable and verifiable objective facts that inform knowledge." "In fact, new facts can render old facts and old knowledge, invalid." Researchers cannot understand why poor Southern whites vote for conservative politicians who then enact laws benefiting rich landowners. It maybe because human beings are social animals and feel comfortable with people who are similar. Even though no one has seen God religion gives a sense of belonging and comfort that we are not alone. Perhaps, social media has given a voice to people independent of what we are told by politicians. Maybe, that is why they want to censor it.