Researching through scientific literature published about the covert assaults and torture there is an easily recognized echo chamber where the same disinformation is repeated in many scientific papers from many sources. It’s intentional disinformation that has been introduced into online communities of susceptible traumatized victims urgently attempting to answer the inescapable questions of who is doing this, why are they doing it, how is it being done, etc. Every real victim is urgently hunting how to deal with this, how to protect ourselves/escape and finally how do we bring the filth behind this to Justice.
The levels of torture and evil this assault wields is upon victims is unprecedented. It is a true living nightmare. Because it’s so covert and performed on innocent people it’s very difficult to answer these questions. Due to the ever present assault and the resultant sustained trauma it’s almost impossible to ignore these questions. Answering these questions and taking appropriate steps to end the torment is how humanity has historically dealt with trauma. But currently you can‘t run from it, you cant find it so you can’t destroy it, you cant shield from it very well so you cant hide and we don’t know for sure who is behind it.
The assault continues and this means we are all looking for the answers to the important questions so we can finally escape this filthy weapon. This unfortunately leaves many victims extremely susceptible to suggestion. The people behind this both create and join in on victims online communities and use them to introduce and spread disinformation to victims. Many victims latch onto the disinformation they present in order to have the psychological protection an answer provides.
The disinformation is then echo chambered by influenced victims, while the implanted ideas are encouraged and reinforced by the participation of the programs online presence.
This is done to implant delusional ideas into victims and the communities they frequent. This discredits victims claims and reports. It promotes experiences that further programs goals like isolation, the destruction of personal identity and constant levels of intense stress. It also causes to victims to fall into complex futile rabbit holes. If we are collectively searching for the Fountain of Youth, Eldorado and the Philosophers Stone then we aren’t going to be putting much productive effort into blowing this filth off the Earth.
Currently there is an interesting dynamic where victims online echo chambers that are frequented, influenced and cultivated by the people behind this have caused a resultant echo chamber in the scientific literature about it.
When you study this using online communities you going to have to learn how to distinguish fake delusion indoctrinating “victims” from real victims, both influenced and uninfluenced.
If researchers and investigators are not able to do this then the implanted discrediting and delusional content will have powerful negative effects on the people researching and their publications about this.
We have clear dynamics around these crimes that allow for the easy formation of echo chambers and information cocoons.
- There are very limited resources to look at to find and study published information about victims experiences. Limited source research has been identified as a cause of published Scientific literature echo chambers.
- There is active discrediting and delusional implantation being performed by people and intelligences involved in the current programs.
- The victims are innocent people that are bombarded with a sustained covert assault that results in prolonged trauma leaving many of us highly susceptible to influence and suggestion.
- Previous scientific publications stated discrediting and delusional content forming a flawed platforms and resources for scientific publications that follow. Due to the nature and method of science, given certain efforts and parameters, it unfortunately is susceptible to echo chamber formation and once disinformation is adopted it becomes extremely difficult to jettison.
Looking at echo chambers and information cocoons.
“Defining the problem context
The emergence of confined online information environments
Before the advent of Internet-enabled personalization technology, confined online information environments like echo chambers and information cocoons began to take shape within social groups where homophily (the inclination to associate with like-minded individuals) led to a limited exposure to diverse viewpoints (Colleoni et al., 2014). As Sunstein (2018) noted, this phenomenon led to confined online information environments where shared values and communicative norms reinforced certain perspectives, making it difficult to bridge differing viewpoints. Our study builds on Sunstein’s foundational work, which highlights both the group-driven nature of echo chambers and the individual-driven creation of information cocoons (Sunstein, 2001, Sunstein, 2006). Traditional media played a significant role in fostering echo chambers by curating content tailored to specific audience demographics (Prior, 2007). Not only did this curation cater to the interests of particular groups, but it also contributed to a narrowed scope of information available to individuals, thus limiting the diversity of perspectives encountered (Barberá, 2020).
The advent of social media intensified the debate over the effects of echo chambers (Barberá, 2020). Platforms use algorithms that learn and reinforce preferences to boost user engagement (Gillespie, 2022, Guess et al., 2018), prompting content that aligns with existing beliefs (Bakshy et al., 2015). As highlighted by Del Vicario et al. (2016) and elaborated on Kitchens et al. (2020), this self-reinforcing cycle of engagement can lead to confined online information environments where dissenting opinions are marginalized, limiting user exposure to alternative viewpoints.
The current conceptualization of confined online information environments and their limitations
Kitchens et al. (2020) identified two constitutive characteristics of echo chambers. The first distinctive feature is the limited diversity of information stemming from constraints imposed on information sources. This reduces the variety of perspectives available to individuals within echo chambers (Bakshy et al., 2015, Garrett, 2009a, Kitchens et al., 2020, Shore, et al., 2016). The second attribute of echo chambers is ideological segregation. This phenomenon amplifies the tendency for like-minded individuals to congregate and interact, fostering an environment that reinforces prevailing ideological viewpoints while constricting exposure to dissenting opinions (Barberá et al., 2015, Dubois et al., 2018, Garrett, 2009a, Kitchens et al., 2020, Shore, et al., 2016). Consequently, Kitchens et al. (2020) proposed a general model that lays out the interplay among network homophily, algorithmic filtering, and individual behavioral responses to shape access to information sources (Fig. 1). The model emphasizes that network homophily, the natural tendency of individuals to associate with like-minded peers, forms the foundation. This homophily is exacerbated by algorithmic filtering, where social media platforms tailor content based on user preferences. As a result, individuals are exposed primarily to information that resonates with their existing viewpoints. This curated content promotes individual behavioral responses, reinforcing the preference for similar information and further solidifying network homophily.
Fig. 1. Information
Source Consumption under Echo Chambers from Kitchens et al. (2020).
While Kitchens et al. (2020) offered a useful model for understanding the dynamics of echo chambers, a significant limitation was its emphasis on algorithmic filtering without fully addressing the role of selective user behavior (Pandey et al., 2023). By focusing predominantly on how algorithms shape content exposure, the model overlooks the agency of users in actively seeking out information that aligns with their beliefs. The current focus on source diversity and source slant underemphasizes user-driven selective exposure, where individuals actively seek content that aligns with their beliefs, and how these intentional choices influence the information environment (Jungherr, 2023, Jungherr et al., 2023, Jungherr et al., 2023). Shifting the focus to incorporate user-driven selective exposure could reveal other factors that influence information diversity and ideological slant and thereby enrich understanding of how echo chambers work in digital spaces.
Towards a unified model of echo chambers and information cocoons
To address our research question, we first develop a conceptual differentiation between information cocoons and echo chambers. We present a model that illustrates how behavioral and social factors can lead to variation in information source consumption, resulting in the formation of either information cocoons or echo chambers. This process-based view offers two key advantages: (a) it conceptualizes the phenomenon through the lens of information processing flow; and (b) by removing algorithmic filtering from the model, it allows us to consider the role of user agency in creating confined information environments.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, selection homophily and network homophily represent two pivotal forces influencing the information sources a user is exposed to. We begin by describing the processes that lead to the formation of information cocoons. Selection homophily underscores an individual’s selective consumption of information. Before the advent of recommender algorithms, the phenomenon of the individual’s selective information consumption was already evident. Sunstein (2006) described information cocoons as environments in which individuals lock themselves into “communication universes in which we only hear what we choose and only what comforts us and pleases us” (Sunstein, 2006, p. 9). For instance, based on their preferences and research areas, people subscribe to magazines and select specific academic journals. This active consumption of homogenized information is corroborated by the principles of selective exposure (Freedman & Sears, 1965) and cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962) described in academic literature. Individuals show a bias for seeking information that reinforces preexisting opinions while disregarding contradictory information. Moreover, they display a preference for engaging with supportive content (Sears & Freedman, 1967), engage in impulsive information sharing (Arendt et al., 2016), and show information avoidance behaviors (Momsen & Ohndorf, 2022).
Fig. 2. A Model of Echo Chambers and Information Cocoons.
As Sunstein (2006) posited, information selection involves two primary categories: topics and viewpoints. The phenomenon of selective exposure to issues of interest is pervasive. To illustrate, vegetarians tend to prioritize news related to vegetarianism (Lueders et al., 2022), and owners of a specific car brand are more inclined to view marketing advertisementsfor that brand (Sunstein, 2017). Selective exposure to confirmatory information frequently results in suboptimal decision outcomes, and the phenomenon may intensify in the context of the Internet (Fischer & Greitemeyer, 2010). In the contemporary era, individuals have access to vast amounts of information. While they tend to selectively consume information that aligns with their viewpoints, this selectivity is also a practical response to information overload, not just a psychological tendency. This homophily of choice leads to information bias and narrowing, which further leads to individuals becoming siloed in information cocoons. Scholars have posited that even when individuals are exposed to diverse content on the Internet, it only sometimes leads to the consumption of varied perspectives. Bakshy et al. (2015) collected datafrom over 10 million American Facebook users and compared the news categories that users voluntarily read with the information presented to them through algorithms. Their findings indicate that users are more likely to consume information aligned with their existing viewpoints, leading the authors to conclude that homogenization was occurring. In short, users’ selective choices based on their points of view and interests are the driving force behind the formation of information cocoons.
We now turn to the phenomenon of echo chambers. Following the occurrence of selective homophily driven by user choices, there arises the possibility of dynamic group homogeneity. Network homophily, established on the foundation of social interactions, may be fostered through interpersonal diffusion, facilitating the formation and interaction of homogeneous groups (Flaxman et al., 2016, Geiß et al., 2021, Shore, et al., 2016). During user-prompted interpersonal communication, individuals seek out others with viewpoints that align with their own (Shore et al., 2016). This can manifest in various contexts, like daily face-to-face interactions or mutual attraction in online settings. Individuals with congruent viewpoints aggregate and form multiple distinct groups. The dissemination of homogenized information within these groups fosters homogeneous perspectives. For example, Röchert et al. (2022)found that in online conspiracy communities, there is a high level of homogeneity in discussions among advocates of these theories. In another study of online discussions about public events, Strauß et al. (2020) found a positive correlation between the frequency of discussions and the level of homogeneity within the group.
Furthermore, heterogeneity between online groups tends to increase. In the context of technology-mediated social interactions, the role of technology is amplified, serving as a potent force in driving information dissemination. One such influence is collaborative recommendationtechnology, which plays a crucial role in content recommendation. Notably, even users who do not exhibit pronounced viewpoint biases may be exposed to a high frequency of supportive information related to a particular stance. This phenomenon can be attributed to the impact of social algorithms as described by Lazer (2015).
In conclusion, the subjectivity of user preferences enables the construction of personalized, homogenized information environments – referred to as information cocoons. Both user-initiated interpersonal diffusion and social interactions demonstrate the existence of perspective heterogeneity between groups and homogeneity within groups. User preferences for homogenized choices can result in echo chambers through iterative dissemination of homogeneous information in human interactions, which can, over time, lead to the emergence of identifiable information cocoons.”
A write up about
This work looks into search engines ability to form echo chambers in Scientific Literature. Due to the factors listed above an easily recognizable Scientific Echo Chamber has formed in the published work studying reports of these heinous crimes.
Most if not all published work begins with something almost exactly like this:
“Gangstalking is a novel persecutory belief system whereby those affected believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people, often numbering in the thousands. The harassment is experienced as an accretion of innumerable individually benign acts such as people clearing their throat, muttering under their breath, or giving dirty looks as they pass on the street. Individuals affected by this belief system congregate in online fora to seek support, share experiences, and interact with other like-minded individuals. Such people identify themselves as targeted individuals.”
Related content
Gangstalking is an easily recognized promoted delusion that’s used to discredit victims reports. The terminology commonly used by victims is group talk installed by criminals behind this in an attempt to control cognition of victims by employing group think and to mystify the general public as well as researchers and investigators.
The most difficult part of this is determining what is real and whats not.
