Echo chambers has been popular as a buzz phrase as of late, the idea that we post and share links and opinions that we agree with on social media to others that also agree with them, thereby amplifying their echo. What happens to those chambers, though, when 'dark echoes' infect public debate? In an era of increasing public distrust, there's a very real risk that good ideas could fall victim to a failure to disclose. It breeds suspicion. Some are clamouring for public advocacy groups to disclose their sources of funding – an admirable goal – but they're eerily silent when it comes to Jim Shephard disclosing his funding sources for his recent first-past-the-post advertising campaign in advance of this fall's referendum on proportional representation. Sometimes the connection between a group and its self-interests are obvious: the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Taxpayers Association spring to mind.

Echo chambers has been popular as a buzz phrase as of late, the idea that we post and share links and opinions that we agree with on social media to others that also agree with them, thereby amplifying their echo. What happens to those chambers, though, when 'dark echoes' infect public debate? In an era of increasing public distrust, there's a very real risk that good ideas could fall victim to a failure to disclose. It breeds suspicion. Some are clamouring for public advocacy groups to disclose their sources of funding – an admirable goal – but they're eerily silent when it comes to Jim Shephard disclosing his funding sources for his recent first-past-the-post advertising campaign in advance of this fall's referendum on proportional representation. Sometimes the connection between a group and its self-interests are obvious: the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Taxpayers Association spring to mind.