Do you have more details about that?

I think in your case you’re definitely banning queerphobia/bigotry, which I hope most people agree is radically different from banning dissenting opinions.

Maybe the definition of an echo chamber should revolve more about what would be different if you weren’t in it? For example, I’d say I’m in a community that is an echo chamber if, when getting out of this community, I might change some of my views that previously seemed obvious. I hope that people in a queer community don’t start questioning their sexuality/worth once they’re outside of a queer friendly community - although after writing it out maybe some do :(

But then it’s not the same mechanics: if I come out of an echo chamber I might read up on some new evidence/arguments/opinions that challenge my thinking, while coming out of a queer friendly space is, as you’re saying, getting exposed to hateful comments and being weakened by these. It doesn’t seem right to say it’s an echo chamber, just like it doesn’t seem right to say there are “conspiracy-friendly” communities!

I’m guessing they don’t put forward any arguments related to their climate impact, but out of curiosity do we know how prioritizing passenger trains in the US impacts the way these goods are transported ? Is this a minor inconvenience for the industry that’s they’re fussing about and nothing would actually change, or would the goods have to significantly shift to truck transportation ?

I live in a country where there’s the opposite problem: we have a lot of passenger trains, but they’re attempting to revive freight trains because truck transportation is quite CO2 costly. Reduced emissions are definitely only one advantage amongst many for public trains, but I’m wondering how much you save/lose by replacing(?) one freight train passing with passenger train.