Group 1 - The article discusses the concepts of "information cocoon," "filter bubble," and "echo chamber," suggesting that these terms oversimplify the complexities of individual existence in the digital space, reducing it to a binary of "closed" and "isolated" [1][2][6] - It introduces Peter Sloterdijk's "sphere three states," categorizing human coexistence into bubbles, spheres, and foam, highlighting the interwoven nature of these forms in modern society [2][4][5] - The article emphasizes that the digital community's nature is not merely a "closed cocoon" but rather a "foam aggregation," which reflects the dynamic and interconnected nature of individual bubbles [6][7] Group 2 - The concept of "algorithmic pampering space" is introduced, where algorithms create a comfortable information environment for users, but also entrap them within a data capitalism framework [8][9] - The mechanisms of filtering, bonding, and cycling are described as ways algorithms reinforce user preferences while isolating them from diverse viewpoints, leading to a "self-consuming cycle" within groups [11][13] - The article argues that the challenge is not just breaking free from information cocoons but addressing the deeper issue of cognitive rigidity, which is more difficult to overcome [14][16] Group 3 - The notion of "bubble community" is presented as a complex system of interconnected information bubbles, where isolation and connection coexist, and emphasizes the need for optimizing this structure [25][26] - It suggests that improving the bubble community requires algorithmic interventions, promoting the flow of heterogeneous information, and establishing a social contract among users, platforms, and governments [20][22][23] - The article concludes that the goal is not to dismantle these bubbles but to create valuable connections among them, transforming fragmented pieces into a cohesive digital ecosystem [27][29]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "bubble community" as a complex and dynamic structure in the digital age, emphasizing the coexistence of isolation and connection among individual information bubbles, challenging the traditional narrative of "information cocoons" [31][22]. Group 1: Conceptual Framework - The terms "information cocoon," "filter bubble," and "echo chamber" attempt to describe a shared experiential space, which can be categorized into three forms: bubbles, spheres, and foams, as proposed by philosopher Peter Sloterdijk [3][5]. - Bubbles represent the smallest unit of coexistence, symbolizing intimate relationships, while spheres denote larger, closed communities that provide safety from external threats [3][5][6]. - Foams consist of interconnected bubbles, representing an open yet fragile social structure, where individual bubbles maintain their independence while influencing one another [6][8]. Group 2: Algorithmic Influence - Algorithms create a "pampered space" for users by filtering out uncomfortable information and reinforcing cognitive biases, leading to a "cognitive immune space" [10][12]. - The filtering mechanism passively constructs boundaries, while the "adhesion mechanism" actively strengthens these boundaries through user interactions, such as likes and shares [11][12]. - This results in a parasitic structure where users become laborers in data capitalism, trading their data for a comfortable cognitive environment [12][13]. Group 3: Challenges of Digital Interaction - The article highlights the shift from emotional resonance to adversarial stimuli as the glue that binds groups together, leading to polarization and a lack of diverse viewpoints [13][15]. - Individual fluidity is constrained within algorithmic pampered spaces, where users appear to have freedom but are actually confined to predetermined cognitive frameworks [14][15]. - The self-consuming cycle of information within these bubbles leads to a gradual loss of vitality and diversity, as members become increasingly homogeneous in their views [15][16]. Group 4: Cognitive Navigation - The concept of "cognitive cocoon" is introduced, emphasizing that the real challenge lies in cognitive rigidity rather than mere information isolation [19][20]. - Individuals often reject opposing viewpoints due to confirmation bias and the fear of cognitive dissonance, reinforcing their existing beliefs [19][20]. - The article argues that breaking free from cognitive cocoons requires more than just exposure to diverse information; it necessitates a shift in mindset and the ability to engage with differing perspectives [16][19]. Group 5: Optimizing Bubble Communities - The article proposes three strategies for optimizing bubble communities: algorithmic intervention, sphere re-gasification, and social engineering [24][25][27]. - Algorithmic intervention involves injecting "heterogeneous bacteria" into recommendation systems to enhance cognitive diversity [24]. - Sphere re-gasification aims to make rigid boundaries more permeable, facilitating interaction between different bubbles [25]. - Social engineering emphasizes the need for a collective social contract among users, platforms, and governments to foster a healthier information ecosystem [27][28].