Kan & Company

Marketing for results

Home » Values

Values

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

It’s not rocket science | Kan & Company

2 minutes

I dropped in on a CEO the other day. We talked about the lessons we had learnt about turning around non-performing companies.

We chatted about how it was so much about reinforcing values. About upholding standards of cleanliness, everyone pitching in, opening up communications between people, creating safe environments so people have the confidence to speak up, building trust, bringing discipline to operations, customer service, sales and marketing, engineering and technology development.

I noticed he had a number of Summer interns working for him. I asked him if they were paid. Before he could answer, I explained why I asked.

It reminded me of a conversation around a board table many years ago. The discussion was about whether interns should be paid as we had noticed that there was a growing trend not to pay them. Fortunately they decided that they should be paid.

All of our interns are paid, he said.  You can shaft someone, and there will be a short term benefit , but in the end, it comes back and bites you. You just have to treat others the way you want to be treated yourself.  It’s not rocket science.

Indeed, I replied. It isn’t rocket science, but what catches people is a lack of courage. Often when the decision has to be made, money might be tight, and the temptation to get something for free is at its height, to pad out the meager resources available and thereby buy more time.

You’re right, it’s not rocket science, but you do need courage to do the right thing.

-1

What’s gonna work? Team work!

7 minutes to read

When my children were young, they used to watch a TV programme called WonderPets.  This was their theme song.

Linny: “The phone, the phone is ringing!”
Ming-Ming: “The phone, we’ll be right there!”

Tuck: “The phone, the phone is ringing!”
Linny: “There’s an animal in trouble…”
Ming-Ming: “There’s an animal in trouble…”
Tuck: “There’s an animal in trouble somewhere!”

Tuck: “A baby [animal]
[In the specific peril.]”
Ming-Ming: “This is se-rious!”
Tuck: “We have to help him/her”
Linny: “Let’s save the [animal]!”

Linny: “Linny,”
Tuck: “Tuck,”
Ming-Ming: “And Ming-Ming, too!”
All: “We’re Wonder Pets and we’ll help you!”
Linny: “What’s gonna work?”
Tuck and Ming-Ming or All: “Teamwork!”
Linny: “What’s gonna work?”
Tuck and Ming-Ming or All: “Teamwork!”

All: “Wonder Pets! Wonder Pets! We’re on our way
To help a baby [animal] and save the day!”
Ming-Ming: “We’re not too big,”
Tuck: “And we’re not too tough,”
All: “But when we work together we’ve got the right stuff!
Go, Wonder Pets! Yay!”

(when they come back to the classroom)
All: “Wonder Pets! Wonder Pets! We found a way
To help the baby [animal] and save the day!”
Ming-Ming: “We’re not too big,”
Tuck: “And we’re not too tough,”
All: “But when we work together we’ve got the right stuff!
Go, Wonder Pets! Yay!”

Team work was a key focus in the 1990s and these days, the idea that teamwork can promote productivity and a positive work environment is axiomatic.

Yet I came across a five-member software development team other day, where some of the members had worked together for nearly ten years.

There was a discussion about how problems had been solved more quickly when they worked together.  There was a collective wish that it wasn’t such a rare event.  A conversation with their manager revealed that none ever had lunch together, or had anything together with one another outside of work.

It seemed incongruous to me that five grown men could sit within an open space within ten metres of each other without any partitions between them, could work without developing some soft of espirit de corps.

Nevertheless, it seemed that this team would not develop further without some form of managerial intervention.  The manager confided that he had, laudably. started stocking the refrigerator with alcohol and started ending the Friday work day a little earlier.

It’s a start.

Members of superior work teams can strongly agree with these statements:

My input is taken seriously when the team set priorities.
We make sure that members are properly acknowledged for their performance.
We treat every team member’s ideas as having potential value.

I’m quite clear about my team’s major goals.
Team members really let their personal feelings get in the way of getting the job done.
Our team members really work by the clock; they do what’s necessary to do the job right.

Our team members are typically optimistic that we can get the job done – regardless of the obstacles.
I never hear one team member criticising another team member to a third party.
When we do get into conflicts, we typically resolve the right way.

We never take credit for someone else’s work.
We pride ourselves on doing the job better than most people typically expect.
I derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from being a part of our team.

I’m very clear on how our team contributes to the total success of the organisation.
When a team member says he/she will do something you can always count on.
When team members don’t know something, it will always tell you they don’t and not act like they do.

When a team member doesn’t agree with another team member, he/she will let the other member know – regardless of the other member’s position or rank.
Our team members always get sensitive team business within the team.
When a team member gives the team bad news, we never “shoot the messenger.”
You can get a straight answer from anyone about anything you want to know.

How many of these statements can you agree with about your team or organisation? Few teams become superior teams without intention.  Leaders have to plan for it and nurture their teams.

 

0