The digital world and coexistence
For many young people, social media is no longer simply a place to share photographs, watch videos or keep in touch with friends. It is also a space where they encounter news, politics, social issues, cultural debates and different perspectives on the world. Digital platforms can connect young people across borders and cultures in ways that were previously unimaginable. Yet the same technologies that can bring people together can also contribute to division.
This creates an important question for anyone working with young people: if social media increasingly determines what we see, hear and discuss, could it also influence how we understand people who are different from us?
Youth for Coexistence (Y4C) seeks to strengthen the capacity of youth workers and organisations to address polarisation, discrimination and social fragmentation through intercultural dialogue and non-formal education (Youth for Coexistence, 2026). Its focus includes social intolerance, hate speech, extremist ideologies, fake news and disinformation on social media. Understanding the role of algorithms is therefore an important part of understanding the digital environments in which young people increasingly develop their identities, opinions and relationships.
The relationship between algorithms and polarisation is not straightforward. Algorithms do not automatically make people intolerant, and social media can expose young people to a much wider range of perspectives than they might encounter offline. However, the way platforms select, rank and recommend content can influence which perspectives receive our attention. The challenge is to ensure that young people have the critical skills to recognise this influence and make informed choices about what they consume and share.
What is an algorithmic bubble?
Social media platforms use algorithms to personalise the content presented to individual users. These systems analyse signals such as what people watch, like, share, search for or spend time viewing and use this information to predict what they might engage with next.
Personalisation can be useful. A young person interested in learning a language, following a particular sport or discovering music may receive content that is relevant to their interests. Without recommendation systems, navigating the enormous volume of online information would be difficult.
However, personalisation can also affect the diversity of information that users encounter. The idea of a “filter bubble”, popularised by Pariser (2011), describes a situation in which personalised information systems increasingly surround individuals with content that reflects their existing interests, preferences or beliefs.
A related concept is the “echo chamber”: an environment in which people predominantly encounter and interact with others who share similar views. In such environments, existing beliefs can be reinforced because alternative perspectives are encountered less frequently.
Importantly, researchers continue to debate exactly how widespread or powerful filter bubbles are. Recent experimental research, for example, has found that short-term exposure to more partisan YouTube recommendations did not produce detectable changes in political attitudes among almost 9,000 participants (Liu et al., 2025). Other research has nevertheless identified relationships between algorithmic curation, selective exposure and polarisation (Ahmmad et al., 2025).
The lesson is therefore not that “algorithms brainwash young people”. The reality is more complicated. Algorithms are one part of a wider information environment that also includes our friends, communities, influencers, media organisations, political actors and our own existing beliefs.
From personalisation to polarisation
Polarisation develops when differences between groups become increasingly pronounced and people become less willing to understand or engage with those who hold different views.
Social media can contribute to this process in several ways.
First, content that generates strong emotional reactions can receive considerable attention. Anger, fear and outrage can be powerful drivers of engagement. When provocative content attracts clicks, comments and shares, it may become more visible.
Second, repeated exposure can make particular ideas appear more normal or widespread than they actually are. If a young person repeatedly encounters posts suggesting that a particular social, ethnic, religious or political group is dangerous, inferior or responsible for society’s problems, those messages can gradually influence perceptions—particularly when they appear alongside comments from people the young person already trusts.
Third, social networks can reinforce existing identities. Research suggests that online echo chambers can provide people with a sense of belonging as well as reinforcing ideological positions (Ahmmad et al., 2025). This is important because polarisation is not simply about information; it is also about identity, belonging and relationships.
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has recently warned that highly curated and attention-grabbing content can contribute to “fractured realities”, in which people encounter increasingly different versions of social reality and find it harder to establish common ground (European Commission, 2026).
For young people growing up in these environments, the consequences can be significant.
When difference becomes a threat
One of the greatest challenges for coexistence is not disagreement itself. Democratic and diverse societies depend upon disagreement. The problem arises when disagreement becomes dehumanisation, when difference is presented as a threat, or when people are encouraged to view entire groups through stereotypes.
Online content can contribute to this process by repeatedly presenting simplified narratives about complex social issues. A migration debate, for example, can become reduced to a series of emotionally charged images and slogans. Questions about religion, national identity, gender, ethnicity or political ideology can similarly become framed as conflicts between opposing groups.
This can make it increasingly difficult to see individuals rather than categories.
The problem is particularly serious when disinformation, conspiracy theories or extremist narratives become part of this environment. A 2026 European Commission report examining young people’s susceptibility to disinformation and conspiracy theories found concerns that algorithmically mediated information bubbles can expose teenagers to repeated extremist narratives and conspiracy theories (European Commission, 2026b).
In the Western Balkans, the relationship between online information environments and social divisions is particularly relevant. A recent EU Knowledge Hub paper highlighted the increasing use of digital environments by extremist actors and identified social media algorithms, encrypted messaging applications and gaming communities as important spaces for the dissemination of extremist narratives (European Commission, 2026c).
This does not mean that every young person exposed to harmful content will become radicalised. It does mean that youth workers need to understand the environments in which such narratives can circulate.
Young people and digital resilience
Responding to these challenges requires more than telling young people to “be careful online”.
Young people need the ability to understand how information reaches them.
This is increasingly described through concepts such as media and information literacy, digital literacy and algorithmic literacy. UNESCO emphasises the importance of enabling young people to critically navigate complex information environments, including disinformation, hate speech and emerging technologies (UNESCO, 2024).
Algorithmic awareness is an important part of this.
Young people can be encouraged to ask:
- Why am I seeing this content?
- Who created it?
- What does the creator want me to think, feel or do?
- Is the information supported by reliable evidence?
- Am I seeing alternative perspectives?
- Would I think differently if I saw different information?
- Why might this post be receiving so much attention?
- Am I responding because I have considered the argument, or because the content has made me angry or afraid?
These questions do not require young people to become technology experts. They encourage them to become more reflective users of technology.
Research with young people in the Netherlands has similarly highlighted the importance of developing awareness, knowledge, agency and ethical reflection around algorithms and social media (de Groot, de Haan and van Dijken, 2023).
What can youth workers do?
Youth workers have an important role because non-formal education can provide something that online environments often lack: time to stop, reflect and talk.
A youth worker could, for example, ask participants to compare how different social-media accounts describe the same event. Rather than immediately asking which account is “correct”, the group could explore how language, images, headlines and emotional appeals influence interpretation.
Another activity could involve asking young people to consider their own feeds.
My Algorithmic Bubble
Participants could reflect on:
- What subjects appear most frequently on my social-media feed?
- Which opinions or perspectives do I encounter most often?
- Which perspectives rarely appear?
- Why might the platform think I am interested in particular content?
What could I do to deliberately encounter something different?
The objective is not to tell young people what they should believe. Instead, it is to encourage curiosity about how their information environment is constructed.
Youth workers can also create opportunities for structured dialogue between young people who hold different perspectives. This is especially important because simply exposing people to opposing opinions does not automatically produce understanding. Dialogue requires skills such as listening, questioning, empathy, reflection and the ability to disagree without attacking the person who holds a different view.
These approaches closely reflect the wider objectives of Youth for Coexistence, which places empathy, dialogue and peaceful coexistence at the centre of youth work (Youth for Coexistence, 2026).
From algorithmic bubbles to dialogue
It would be easy to portray social media as the enemy of coexistence. That would be a mistake.
The same technologies that can reinforce division can also enable young people to encounter people, cultures and experiences that would otherwise remain outside their everyday lives.
Social media can give young people opportunities to:
- communicate across national borders;
- discover different cultures;
- challenge stereotypes;
- hear personal experiences from different communities;
- participate in civic discussions;
- organise around issues they care about; and
- develop relationships with people they may never meet offline.
The challenge is therefore not simply to reduce young people’s use of social media. It is to increase their capacity to use digital spaces critically and constructively.
The Council of the European Union has recognised this need, calling for stronger digital and media literacy and for young people to develop skills including understanding algorithms, fact-checking, critical thinking and responsible engagement with digital technologies (Laaninen, T. 2025).
This is particularly relevant to youth work because digital resilience should not be understood as an individual responsibility alone. Platforms, governments, educators, civil society and technology companies all have responsibilities for creating healthier information environments.
A Youth for Coexistence perspective
Coexistence does not mean that everyone has to agree.
It means creating societies in which differences can exist without automatically becoming sources of hostility, discrimination or violence.
For young people, much of the process of encountering difference now happens online. This means that promoting coexistence cannot stop at the doors of the youth centre, classroom or community organisation. It also needs to address the digital environments where young people communicate, form relationships and encounter competing narratives.
Youth workers can help young people become more conscious of the invisible systems influencing their online experiences. More importantly, they can help them develop the confidence to pause before reacting, question what they encounter, seek alternative perspectives and engage with difference constructively.
Who controls the conversation?
Algorithms influence what we see, but they do not completely determine what we believe.
Young people remain capable of questioning, reflecting, changing their minds and building relationships across differences. The challenge is ensuring they have the knowledge, skills and supportive environments necessary to do so.
In a world where information is increasingly personalised, encountering difference may need to become an intentional act.
For youth workers, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. By combining media and information literacy with intercultural dialogue, empathy and critical thinking, they can help young people move beyond passive consumption of online content towards active participation in the digital world.
Ultimately, the question is not simply whether algorithms divide us.
It is whether we can learn to recognise the bubbles around us—and choose to look beyond them.
If we only see people who think like us, how can we learn to live alongside people who don’t?
References
- Ahmmad, M., Shahzad, K., Iqbal, A. and Latif, M. (2025) ‘Trap of social media algorithms: A systematic review of research on filter bubbles, echo chambers, and their impact on youth’, Societies, 15(11), 301.
- Laaninen, T. (2025) Youth and social media. European Parliament Research Service, Briefing, 2 December 2025. Brussels: European Parliament.
- de Groot, T., de Haan, M. and van Dijken, M. (2023) ‘Learning in and about a filtered universe: Young people’s awareness and control of algorithms in social media’, Learning, Media and Technology, 48(4), pp. 701–713.
- European Commission (2026a) Fractured reality: How algorithms fuel polarisation and affect democracy. Joint Research Centre.
- European Commission (2026b) Between Fact and Feed: A report on qualitative research into young people’s susceptibility to disinformation and conspiracy theories. EU Knowledge Hub on Prevention of Radicalisation, 11 March.
- European Commission (2026c) The nexus between online radicalisation and disinformation in the Western Balkans: Conclusion paper. EU Knowledge Hub on Prevention of Radicalisation.
- European Parliament (2025) Youth and social media. European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing 779235. Brussels: European Parliament.
- Liu, N., Hu, X.E., Savas, Y. et al. (2025) ‘Short-term exposure to filter-bubble recommendation systems has limited polarization effects: Naturalistic experiments on YouTube’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(10).
- Pariser, E. (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press.
- Acero Pulgarin, S., Martinovic, M., González-Gil, N. and Santamaría Virviescas, A. (2024) Journey through the MILtiverse: Media and information literacy toolkit for youth organizations. Paris: UNESCO.
- UNESCO (2024) Journey through the MILtiverse: Media and information literacy toolkit for youth organizations. Paris: UNESCO.