Kan & Company

Marketing for results

Home » Opinion

Opinion

Echo Chambers and the Algorithmic Divide: How Social Media Polarizes Society

Protesters have been harassing and intimidating Winston Peters and his family after they were told where he lived.

In the age of algorithm-driven content, social media platforms have become less like public squares and more like curated echo chambers. What began as a promise of open dialogue has evolved into a system that rewards outrage over nuance, reinforcing users’ existing beliefs and filtering out dissenting views. The result? A society increasingly fractured—not just by ideology, but by the very information people consume.

Algorithms on platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube are designed to maximize attention. They learn what users click, like, and share, then serve up more of the same. Over time, this creates a feedback loop where users are exposed primarily to content that aligns with their views. Political groups, activists, and influencers—aware of this dynamic—have become more aggressive in pushing their narratives, often talking past one another rather than engaging in genuine debate.

This polarization is especially visible across generational lines. Young people, immersed in progressive content streams, often express disbelief at older generations’ views, unaware that their elders are seeing an entirely different digital reality. The reverse is equally true. Neither side is wrong to be confused—they’re simply not seeing the same internet.

A striking example of this divide was highlighted in a 2021 Google experiment, where two laptops—used by individuals with different browsing histories and political leanings—were placed side by side. When the same search term was entered, the results differed dramatically. One user saw mainstream news sources; the other was served partisan blogs and fringe commentary. This divergence underscores how even basic facts are filtered through personalized algorithms.

The consequences of this fragmentation are no longer theoretical. In October 2025, pro-Palestinian protesters targeted the Auckland home of Foreign Minister Winston Peters, chanting, livestreaming, and publicizing his address online 1 2. A window was smashed while his partner and a guest were inside, and his dog was injured by shattered glass 3. Peters condemned the incident as “disgraceful and blatant harassment,” warning that political activism had crossed a line into intimidation 4. The episode illustrates how moral outrage, amplified by algorithmic echo chambers, can override basic decency—even putting families at risk.

This is the first generation to encounter such technology at scale. Unlike past eras where newspapers offered shared reference points, today’s digital landscape is fragmented and personalized. The answer isn’t to abandon these platforms—but to become more mindful and savvy about how they shape perception. Users must learn to work harder to unearth alternative views, to think critically, and to question the completeness of their digital diet. Before forming opinions on controversial political, social, or religious issues, it’s essential to research widely, seek out opposing perspectives, and understand the algorithmic forces at play.

Until then, the echo chambers will persist—not because people refuse to listen, but because they no longer hear the same things.

 

 

0

The Double-Edged Pen: AI in Business Copywriting

Using AI for copywriting you still have to provide the facts

A cautionary tale emerged in August 2025 when Rishi Nathwani KC, a senior barrister in Victoria, Australia, was publicly reprimanded for submitting AI-generated legal arguments in a murder trial. The submissions included fabricated quotes from legislative speeches and fictitious case law, purportedly from the Supreme Court. Justice James Elliott delayed the case by 24 hours after court associates failed to locate the cited precedents. Nathwani admitted the citations “do not exist,” having assumed their accuracy based on a few verified entries. The fallout was swift and sobering: a reminder that even seasoned professionals can be misled by AI’s confident tone and polished output.

Artificial intelligence has rapidly become a staple in the business copywriter’s toolkit, offering speed, scalability, and a surprising knack for tone-matching. When used wisely, AI excels at drafting articles where the human author provides the facts, structure, and intent—allowing the machine to handle the linguistic heavy lifting. This is especially effective for internal communications, product descriptions, and marketing blogs where the subject matter is well-understood and the factual base is solid. In these cases, AI acts as a tireless assistant, rephrasing, summarizing, and formatting content with impressive efficiency.

But the reliability of AI in copywriting hinges on one critical factor: the truth must come from the human. When tasked with generating non-fiction content independently—especially in technical, legal, or historical domains—AI can veer into dangerous territory. It may fabricate plausible-sounding details, statistics, or even citations. These so-called “ghost citations” are references to sources that don’t exist, often presented with convincing formatting and tone. The risk isn’t just academic—it’s reputational.

This incident underscores a broader truth: AI is not a source of knowledge, but a pattern generator. It doesn’t “know” facts—it predicts what words are likely to follow based on its training data. In business copywriting, this means AI should be used to express what the writer already knows, not to discover or assert new truths. The best practice is to treat AI like a junior editor: helpful with phrasing, formatting, and tone—but never trusted to originate facts or verify sources.

As AI tools become more embedded in business workflows, the burden of truth remains firmly on the human. The pen may be digital, but the responsibility is not.

 

0

What’s the difference between marketing and sales?

Some people think Marketing is just advertising and promotions. But it’s so much more. Others think that they know how to do sales and therefore they can “do marketing.”

Marketing and sales are two distinct but interrelated functions in a business. Marketing involves identifying, understanding, and satisfying the needs and wants of potential and existing customers, while sales involves persuading and convincing them to buy the products or services that the business offers. Marketing and sales work together to create value for both the customers and the business.

Marketing encompasses a wide range of activities, such as market research, product development, pricing, distribution, promotion, branding, and customer relationship management. Marketing aims to create awareness, interest, desire, and action among the target market segments. Marketing also helps to establish the positioning, differentiation, and competitive advantage of the business in the marketplace.

Sales, on the other hand, focuses on closing deals and generating revenue for the business. Sales involves contacting, qualifying, presenting, negotiating, and closing with the prospects and customers. Sales also involves providing after-sales service and support to ensure customer satisfaction and loyalty. Sales relies on the leads and prospects generated by marketing to convert them into paying customers.

The difference between marketing and sales can be summarized as follows: marketing is about creating demand, while sales is about fulfilling demand. Marketing is about attracting customers, while sales is about retaining customers. Marketing is about communicating value, while sales is about delivering value. Marketing is a long-term strategic process, while sales is a short-term tactical process.

0

Combining the roles of board chair and CEO

Combining the roles of board chairperson and chief executive can have several benefits for an organization, such as:

  • Enhancing strategic alignment and vision. Having one person in charge of both the board and the executive team can ensure that the organization’s strategy and vision are consistent and coherent, and that the board and the executive team are working towards the same goals.
  • Improving decision-making and accountability. Having one person responsible for both the board and the executive team can facilitate faster and more effective decision-making, as well as clearer accountability for the outcomes. The combined leader can also communicate more directly and transparently with the stakeholders, such as shareholders, employees, customers, and regulators.
  • Reducing costs and complexity. Having one person hold both roles can reduce the costs and complexity of having two separate leaders, such as salaries, benefits, travel expenses, office space, etc. It can also simplify the governance structure and avoid potential conflicts or duplication of roles and responsibilities.
  • Bringing better board visibility. Usually a board expects a CEO to have thought through an issue and presented the board with a solution and a recommendation before it is brought before them. On the other hand, members of the board have a duty and responsibility to keep the board informed of issues and risks as soon as they become aware of them. This means that an Executive Chair should bring issues to the board before they have been fully worked through, giving the board real time awareness of the issue and its resolution.

However, combining the roles of board chairperson and chief executive also has some drawbacks and risks, such as:

  • Concentrating too much power and influence in one person. Having one person control both the board and the executive team can create a situation where there is a lack of checks and balances, independent oversight, or constructive challenge. This can lead to potential issues such as groupthink, tunnel vision, ethical lapses, or abuse of power.
  • Increasing the workload and stress for the combined leader. Having one person handle both roles can create a heavy workload and stress for the combined leader, who has to balance multiple demands and expectations from different stakeholders. This can affect the leader’s performance, health, well-being, or succession planning.
  • Reducing diversity and representation on the board. Having one person occupy both roles can reduce the diversity and representation on the board, especially if the combined leader is from a dominant or privileged group. This can limit the board’s ability to reflect the interests and perspectives of different stakeholders, such as minority shareholders, employees, customers, or communities.

Therefore, combining the roles of board chairperson and chief executive is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every organization. It depends on various factors such as the size, nature, culture, strategy, performance, challenges, opportunities, and stakeholder expectations of the organization. It also requires careful consideration of the potential benefits and drawbacks, as well as appropriate safeguards and mechanisms to mitigate the risks.

0

How to write an RFP for technology systems

A request for proposal (RFP) is a document that solicits proposals from potential vendors for a project or service. An RFP typically outlines the scope, objectives, deliverables, timeline, budget, evaluation criteria and submission requirements of the project. An RFP is an important tool for selecting the best vendor for a technology system that is mission critical and is a significant procurement for your organisation or business.

An ideal RFP for such a system should have the following components:

– Executive summary: This section provides a brief overview of the organization, its mission, vision and goals, and the purpose and scope of the RFP. It should also highlight the main benefits and challenges of the project, and the expected outcomes and impacts.

– Background and context: This section provides relevant information about the organization’s current situation, needs, problems and opportunities. It should also describe the existing technology system, its limitations and gaps, and the desired features and functionalities of the new system.

– Project description: This section defines the scope and objectives of the project, and the specific deliverables and requirements that the vendor must meet. It should also specify the timeline, milestones, deliverables and acceptance criteria for each phase of the project.

– Budget and payment terms: This section indicates the available budget for the project, and the expected payment terms and schedule. It should also state whether the budget is fixed or flexible, and whether there are any incentives or penalties for performance.

– Evaluation criteria and process: This section describes how the proposals will be evaluated and scored, and what factors will be considered in the selection process. It should also outline the steps and timeline of the evaluation process, and the roles and responsibilities of the evaluation committee.

– Proposal format and submission instructions: This section provides detailed instructions on how to prepare and submit a proposal, including the format, structure, content, length and language of the proposal. It should also specify the deadline, mode and address of submission, and any other relevant information or documents that must be included with the proposal.

An ideal RFP for a technology system that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars should be clear, concise, comprehensive and consistent. It should also be realistic, feasible and aligned with the organization’s goals and needs. An ideal RFP should attract qualified vendors who can offer innovative solutions that meet or exceed the expectations of the organization.

0