Gen Z and Alpha are more divided than ever

The algorithmic cage: how social media shapes belief systems

Fifteen-year-old Emily doesn’t watch the evening news or search for information on Google. Her worldview is curated by TikTok’s For You Page—a digital mirror reflecting what she already believes. Whether it’s climate activism or libertarianism, her feed amplifies one perspective while dismissing dissenters.

A 2019 study published in Physical Review Letters found that social media algorithms act as “radicalization accelerators,” gradually pushing users toward extreme opinions over time (Baumann et al., 2019). Similarly, Bright and Marchal (2020) showed that online echo chambers filter out opposing views and encourage ridicule of differing perspectives. The longer young people engage with polarized content, the more they shift from moderate curiosity to ideological loyalty.

For both Generation Z, born between 1995 and 2009, and Generation Alpha (born between 2010 and 2024), this means fewer debates and more confirmation bias. Unlike previous generations, who encountered diverse perspectives in schools, workplaces, or at home, today’s youth often find themselves in digital bubbles where opposing viewpoints aren’t just wrong—they’re perceived as threats.

For both Gen Z and Alpha, this means fewer debates and more confirmation bias. Unlike previous generations, who encountered diverse perspectives in schools, workplaces, or at home, today’s youth often find themselves in digital bubbles where opposing viewpoints aren’t just wrong—they’re perceived as threats.

The rise of digital tribalism and the fragmentation of reality

Humans have always gravitated toward groups that validate their identity, from early tribal societies to modern communities. However, today’s digital tribalism is different: it is engineered, monetized, and intensified by technology.

Social media thrives on engagement; nothing drives it more effectively than outrage. A Journal of Student Research paper (2023) found that anger-driven content is 67% more likely to be shared than neutral content (Kim, 2023). Consequently, platforms don’t just cluster like-minded people—they radicalize them by rewarding the most extreme voices within those groups.

Donkers & Ziegler (2021) identified two types of echo chambers: epistemic, which creates blind spots by filtering information, and ideological, which goes further by actively discrediting outside views (Donkers & Ziegler, 2021). Once inside these silos, young users often fear social repercussions for ideological flexibility.

Whether through hyper-progressive activism on platforms like Tumblr and X (formerly Twitter) or reactionary ideologies on Discord and Reddit, young people are increasingly adopting hardened identities. The exit cost—from social rejection to self-doubt—is high.

The erosion of critical thinking and the family divide

One of the most concerning effects of digital tribalism is the decline of critical thinking. Traditionally, family interactions and formal education challenged young minds to think critically. Now, these interactions are being replaced by algorithmic echo chambers.

A 2022 study by New Media & Society found that youth who primarily consume algorithm-driven content are 30% less likely to engage in face-to-face political discussions with family members who disagree. This leads to a new kind of silence, not driven by politeness but by polarization.

Instead of debating, many young people now dismiss opposing views as ignorant or harmful. The space for dialectic has been replaced by moral performance, often optimized for likes rather than learning.

The social consequences: polarization, recruitment, and rising inequality

The consequences extend far beyond online arguments. The deeper the digital divide, the more susceptible youth become to radical recruitment. Extremist groups—from far-right nationalist forums to rigid progressive enclaves—understand the mechanics of digital tribalism and exploit them.

Risius et al. (2019) analyzed Facebook users and found that conspiracy echo chambers isolate members and increase susceptibility to radicalization. Whether through incel communities, far-right groups, or call-out culture spaces, digital enclaves foster a mindset where the “other” becomes not just different but dangerous.

This isn’t just about belief systems—it’s about access. Eurobarometer data suggests that wealthier Gen Z and Alpha youth, with access to more diverse information sources and offline communities, are less likely to fall into extreme online subcultures (Nguyen & Vu, 2019). Individuals from under-resourced backgrounds are more susceptible to digital echo chambers because social media becomes their primary “truth engine.”

Breaking the bubble: Can we fix the damage?

Addressing digital tribalism requires systemic changes. Some platforms are experimenting with features like Twitter’s Birdwatch and TikTok’s diverse viewpoint prompts, but these are often limited and insufficient.

The real solution lies in education. Schools must make digital literacy a core subject, emphasizing how algorithms shape perceptions. Families should foster open discussions, even about controversial topics, rather than avoiding difficult conversations. Workplaces should also create environments that value ideological diversity rather than shying away from it.

If we fail to address digital tribalism now, we risk raising generations that are divided and disconnected from a shared reality. The challenge lies in bridging divides and teaching young people to recognize and resist the forces that create them.

Want to learn more about young people and their involvement in politics?  Read  ” Generation Z and Europe: A Paradox of attachment and distance “