The original argument correctly characterized Bakshy et al. as showing that algorithmic effects exist beyond homophily, not that they exceed
The original argument correctly characterized Bakshy et al. as showing that algorithmic effects exist beyond homophily, not that they exceed homophily effects.
The original premise [1] stated that 'the algorithm contributed an independent additional reduction in cross-cutting exposure beyond homophily' which accurately reflects Bakshy et al.'s finding that both factors contribute.
Establishing that algorithmic effects exist beyond homophily is sufficient to support the sub-claim that algorithmic effects are not fully explained by user self-selection.