Social Media Is Radicalizing Young People. Left and Right.
March 1, 2026 · Frisian News
Research shows that algorithmic feeds push young people toward extreme content, regardless of political leaning. The problem afflicts both left and right, yet institutions struggle to address it without censoring speech.
A 16-year-old in Berlin scrolls through clips for two hours and moves from mainstream politics to conspiracy theories. A 15-year-old in São Paulo starts with social justice content and ends up watching videos that demonize an entire group of people. Both teenagers follow the same path: the algorithm learns what holds their attention and feeds them more of it. Research published this month by the Berlin Institute for Digital Society shows that social media platforms amplify extreme content for young users across the political spectrum, not just one side.
The mechanism works like this. Platforms measure engagement. Extreme content generates engagement. The algorithm does not care whether that extremism sits on the left or the right. A video about government corruption gets views. A video claiming a minority group conspires against the nation gets views. Both climb the feed. Both get recommended to similar users. Young people, whose brains still develop their ability to judge sources and weigh evidence, consume this material at scale and absorb its framing as normal political thought.
Left-wing radicalization through social media looks different from right-wing radicalization, but the underlying problem stays the same. A young person interested in climate activism might encounter accelerationist content that advocates sabotage. Someone exploring identity politics might find material that reduces all disagreement to oppression. On the right, a person curious about government waste encounters replacement theory. The pathways differ, but the destination (black-and-white thinking, enemies everywhere, personal moral purity) remains consistent across the spectrum.
Institutions fumble the response. Governments push for content moderation, which sounds reasonable until you ask: who decides what counts as radical? Left-leaning moderators flag right-wing material; right-leaning moderators do the reverse. Tech companies delete some accounts and leave others standing, producing the impression of bias whether or not bias exists. Meanwhile, the algorithm itself remains hidden. We cannot see why your feed differs from mine, so we cannot meaningfully debate whether the system acts fairly.
Parents and schools struggle harder than institutions. They cannot monitor every screen. They cannot compete with engineers paid millions to make apps addictive. They cannot explain why their child now speaks in slogans instead of sentences. The answer, frustratingly, does not live in banning TikTok or regulating Facebook alone. It lives in changing how these platforms measure success. Until engagement stops meaning profit, the algorithm will keep radicalizing young people in both directions.
In 16-jierrige yn Berlijn scrollt twa oeren troch klips en ferplaatst fan haadstream politik nei konspirasyteoaryen. In 15-jierrige yn São Paulo begjint mei sosjale rjochtfeardigens ynhâld en sjocht úteinlik fideo's dy't in hiele befolkingsgroep demonisearje. Beide tieners folgje it selde paad: it algoritme leert wat har oandacht hâldt en jout har mear dêrfan. Ûndersyk dat dizze moanne troch it Berlyner Ynstituut foar Digitale Maatskippy publisearre is, lit sjen dat sosjale mediaplatformen ekstreme ynhâld foar jonge brûkers oer it heile politike spektrum fersterke, net allinne oan ien kant.
It meganiisme wurket sa. Platforms mjitte yngage. Ekstreme ynhâld generearjet yngage. It algoritme soarget net oft dy ekstremisme links of rjochts leit. In fideo oer korrupsje yn de oerheid krijt views. In fideo dy't bewearret dat in minderheidsgroep tsjin de nasje samenswoart krijt views. Beide klimme yn de feed. Beide wurde oanrikkemandearre oan ferlykbere brûkers. Jongerein, fan waans heit de brein har fermogen om boarnen te beoardieljen en bewiis ôf te wegen noch ûntwikkelje, konsumearje dit materiaal op grutte skaal en nimme it framen dêrfan op as normaal politike tinken.
Lofts-ekstremisme fia sosjale media sjocht der oars út as rjochts-ekstremisme, mar it ûnderlizzend probleem bliuwt itselde. In jonge persoan ynteressearren yn klimaataktivisme kin ynsidinte ynhâld ûntmoetsje dat sabotaazje foarstelt. Iemand dy't identiteitsepolityk ûndersiekt, fynt materiaal dat alle meningsferski'llen ta undertsjinking redusearret. Rjochts ûntmoetet iemand dy't ynteressearren yn oerheidsferve ferfanging teory. De paden ferskille, mar de bestimming (swart-wyt tinken, oeral fammen, persoanlike morele suverheid) bliuwt konseqwint oer it heile spektrum.
Ynstellingen striuwe mei it antwurd. Regeringen driuwe ynhâldsmoderaasje oan, wat ridlik lûkt oant't do fregest: wa bepaalt wat radikal is? Lofts-oriëntearre moderators markearje rjochts-materiaal; rjochts-oriëntearre moderators dogge it selde. Techbedriuwen wiskje guon akounts en litte oaren stean, wêrtroch de yndruk fan foaroerdieling ûntstiet, ûnôfhinklik oft foaroerdieling bestiet. Dertiid bliuwt it algoritme sels ferburgen. Wy sjogge net wêrom dyn feed oars is as de myn, dus wy kinne net sinslös debattearje oft it systeem earmis wurket.
Ouders en skoallen striuwe hârder as ynstellingen. Se kinne elk skerm net kontrolearje. Se kinne net konkurrearje mei yngenieurs dy't miljoenen ferdiene om apps ferslafwend te meitsjen. Se kinne net útleine wêrom har bern no yn slogans sprekket ynstee fan sinnen. It antwurd leit helaas net yn allinne TikTok ferbean of Facebook regulearje. It leit yn ferândering hoe't dizze platforms sukses mjitte. Oant yngage stoppet betsjutting winst, sil it algoritme jongerein yn beide richtingen bliuwe radikalisearje.
Published March 1, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân