Turns out right-wing influencers aren’t keen on new conservative alternatives to mainstream platforms because they’re “echo chambers.” Isn’t that what SDMB is accused of being by its conservative critics?
When your whole stick is sticking it to the libs and/or fighting to get the truth out there, being stuck with nothing but a few tens of thousands who agree with you and/or are more crazy than you, your one horse show is boring and pointless.
Of course they want the big platforms. But they want those platforms to be forced (you know big free speech advocates that they are 
) to let them have their say and re-write all their rules to protect them.
I don’t mean to cause any tsuris, but I believe the word you’re looking for is schtick.
I don’t think these slavish Trump sycophants and dedicated watchers of Fox News really have a problem with “echo chambers”. In fact they thrive on them. I suspect many of them are just pissed off because Trump’s pathetic media ventures ever since Twitter kicked him out have been such embarrassing failures. There’s no one there but a few illiterate morons like themselves.
Give their orange hero the chance to saturate mainstream social media with his incessant lies and blithering nonsense and see if they complain about “echo chambers” then.
Carol Burnett helpfully demonstrates the difference: (jump to 5:24 for the relevant bit)
Thank you, auto-correct is a harsh mistress. 
Proof-reading point to @Mr.Greenjeans .
The schtick has the subtlety of a stick.
Friends, now?
I disagree strongly. The right has tried setting up their own ideologically friendly social-media alternatives, and they inevitably fail. Partly it’s because they’re just bad at this kind of thing, but to whatever extent the interactive environments are marginally functional, the GQP participants get bored and drift away. They need to be in a place where they can argue — alternatively “owning the libs” with their bullshit non sequitur illogic, and getting warned or suspended as evidence of their persecution to feed their fantasies of being underdogs against a media monolith. They may think they want an echo chamber, but in actual practice they don’t stay there.
Well, I strongly disagree with your disagreement. The majority of us here, for instance, excluding trolls and morons, generally agree on at least the broad aspects of most general policy directions. That’s because we’re mostly sane. We can disagree on details and subtleties. And that hasn’t driven too many away out of “boredom”, AFAIK.
The problem with the Trumpists is that their entire ideology is based on a web of lies (“alternative facts”, if you prefer) and so they have to be kept insulated from the real world and real factual information. Hence Trump’s parroting (and acceptance by his followers) of the term “fake news” – once used to describe, well, RW news that was actually fake – but now appropriating “fake news” as a euphemism for “the mainstream media that actually presents facts”.
For the modern conservative, even right wing social media involves too many voices that aren’t always consistent. They yearn for the simpler days when Rush Limbaugh just told them what to think. That’s why they love those Trump rallies. Just one person telling them what is what without any wishy-washy “well, actually…” comments to think about.
Putting it another way, its no fun being a troll if the only people your trolling are other trolls.
Stop trolling the grammar sticklers!
I suspect this may be the number one need. And because of the nature of websites, that need clearly would never be satisfied at a Trumpish forum, no matter how Trumpish. It’s not the echo-chamber part that’s a problem. It’s the ‘no one is directing this’ aspect of a forum.
For example: they get this coveted Victimhood Badge at FoxNews even though it IS an echo-chamber, because the content is designed to tell them how Righteous and Persecuted they are. But a message board or Twitter-clone is different–there is no host. They can tell each other they are Righteous Victims, but that doesn’t satisfy their authoritarian urges for the Great Father who lays it all out for them. And of course on a Trumpish forum the drama of moderators banning them is completely absent. So they’re missing out on both the ‘daddy says we’re the Best’ part (that they get on Fox) and the ‘mean bad people are being mean to us’ part (that they get on non-right-wing forums).
Echo-chambers are fine with the Trumpist right when they are top-down affairs such as a TV show—but not when they are create-the-content-yourself venues such as a forum.
I’m going to stick it to the grammar trollers.
Hey! Leave my sainted Grammar out of this!
I’ve heard that said as to why Jehovah’s Witnesses and other evangelical groups go door to door trying to convert people when their success rate is so low. Making conversions isn’t the point, the constant rejection is. It reenforces social cohesion by demonstrating that the world outside their bubble is harsh and mean and unreceptive.
That’s a dysphemism.
Here’s a recent article from Raw Story discussing this:
Yeah! atta guy, Adam - sic’im!
Sure, a hunch, but, I think we can all agree that’s it a pretty safe, unsurprising one to make.
I’d never heard that theory before—fascinating (and makes all the sense in the world).
It wouldn’t seem to hold true for all evangelical religious activity; for example, the spread of Islam throughout Africa a few centuries back does appear to have been both successful, and not carried out with an expectation of rejection. (Looking at “rejection” as a means of creating group cohesion.)
But for a smaller ‘niche’ denomination–one that requires of its adherents practices considered out of the mainstream, such as refusing blood transfusions–it does seem plausible that the ‘we will bind our people closer together by showing them that the world rejects us’ philosophy might be in play.