I agree in principle with the idea "you are given back to you", but I wouldn't call that individuzation, much less becoming OVER-individuated. If anything, I find the effects of platforms today, namely TikTok, only intensifies the problem of "mass society" and the need to fit in even more. I guess I am open to the idea of an individual, through the processes expalined by the author, being strongly encouraged, or even forced, to rely and over-express a specific trait or opinion they find to be binding them to a group. So, in conclusion, we have the problem of mass society preventing us from showing our individualities because of peer pressure and desire to stay connected on social media, while simultaneously overly relying on some part, or parts, of our personality to, yet again, connect and fit in, but this time around in a specific group or subsection of said mass society. I would argue that this syntetic and overexxagerated development of the persona is still a part of the whole depersonalization process, with just the mechanism to get there a bit different.

I was already chuckling at the first sentence, but then came the second one...

While I know this to be true, even if judging just by personal user epxerience, I cannot help but wonder about recent changes in the algorithm, and the fact that we see less and less of our friends pop up on our feeds. For exemple, it happens more and more often now that I find out my friends posted on social media, only when I go specifically to check their personal profiles.

The definition itselfof an echo chamber...

Was not what the previous paragraph meant rather the publicization of our intimate discourse?

I find it interesting that we usally think of Facebook, and social platforms in general, changing how, whilst this article examines the change in why we talk about politics.