Oxford Dictionaries decided that the word post-truth (or is that two words?) should be Word of the Year for 2016. They defined it as an adjective ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’. Two major news events of 2016 illustrated how untruths (or should I just say lies?) were an illustration of this; namely, the debate prior to the UK referendum vote to leave the European Union and the campaign that resulted in the election of Donald Trump in the United States of America.

Many people were surprised by these two events, and one explanation is the so-called social media bubble. This is a phenomenon which links us to like-minded friends and others, sharing and liking similar news stories, views, and opinions. The algorithms of Facebook (and the like) can decide our friends for us, as those with similar views. Yes, this goes on in the everyday world, but the effect is magnified by the very nature of the medium. It’s like living in an echo chamber.

Many were surprised by Brexit and Trump because they weren’t aware of many people who favoured them. They just weren’t in their circle of friends, or they possibly kept quiet. Add to this the problem of hoaxes, fake news and unreliable quotes, and things can get quite messy. What is truth in a post-truth world after all? Falsehoods are easily spread by people unwilling (or too busy) to make a simple check of their veracity. Google can be your friend, or possibly your false-friend, who knows anymore?

In the space of two days I heard both Brian Eno and Laurie Anderson speak about the feature on Amazon that shows what other people bought after you’ve made a purchase. Another example of the bubble effect? Wouldn’t it be better to have a reverse filter suggesting what they didn’t buy? We can so easily inhabit an echo chamber.

Shouldn’t we be reaching out those with different opinions to our own and seeking to understand?