I’ll be lazy and use the Wikipedia definition:
An echo chamber is a metaphorical description of a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a defined system. Inside a figurative echo chamber, official sources often go unquestioned and different or competing views are censored, disallowed, or otherwise underrepresented.
This seems to be the case to some extent anywhere people exist; we’re influenced by each other and generally a predominant narrative emerges. BoingBoing’s articles are explicitly liberal and feminist, so you’re not going to have the same views represented as in US society. This is a very good thing IMO, and I think a lot of the frequent commenters, especially the women, would not want to stay long in an environment where all views were represented equally. From a more practical perspective, it helps discussion if the Overton window doesn’t welcome all opinions.
On the other hand, there’s no evidence that views are being censored or disallowed if they’re not abusive. Complaining in the lounge is one thing, but people are very cautious about flagging and generally all that will happen is a lot of people responding and a few snarky gifs. It’s not nice to feel the weight of opinion against you, but you get to say your point and like the comments you agree with, and everyone else has the same right. One of the things about the lounge discussions is that people are generally responding to the arguments in thread and leaving any complaining about the person themselves to a more private discussion.
official sources often go unquestioned
I can’t see how anyone could level this accusation against the BBS. Cory’s headlines and articles can be sensationalist, but they’re constantly being criticised by new and regular commenters. There’s the common response “are you disappointed in BoingBoing?”, but that’s generally for whiny comments about liberal bias and clickbait headlines. Where it’s a more factual criticism, the response tends to be more supportive. Discussions generally involve quite a bit of fact checking and reading around the issue, and headlines and articles have been corrected when they’ve been found to misrepresent the facts.
I think one of the biggest things is that people here argue in numbers for positions that are much more rare in society, while rejecting positions that are generally accepted. Someone coming here might expect general approval for what they see as moderate positions, and get strong criticism instead. But I really don’t see the BBS as on the extreme liberal side, and some of the things people decry as liberal nonsense in the US are defended by conservatives elsewhere.
Another thing that encourages me is that there are quite a few threads like this one, actually examining the evidence for other views. MRAs are generally dismissed, but their talking points and perspective have been discussed in a fairly sympathetic way. Trump supporters are attacked by some people, but there have also been a number of discussions about their particular concerns and attempts to see them in a more empathetic way. The same goes for criticisms from the right like political correctness.
I think one sign of an echo chamber is when groups become polarised and just trade insults at each other. This is happening everywhere to some extent, but given the general surrounding culture, there comes a point when being welcoming to everyone is not worth it, and providing a controlled environment that is tolerable and inclusive for those normally excluded is what you need to do.
