po polsku
illustration: DALL-EIn the age of digital dominance, where every click and swipe leaves a trace, the topic of content personalization takes on a new dimension. Vaclav Moravec from Charles University in Prague and a team of researchers from the Czech Republic, Croatia, Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine examined how different social groups understand the phenomenon of online content personalization. Based on data collected from 1,213 Czech citizens, the authors show that awareness of how personalization algorithms work in media is highly socially differentiated. The results of the study were published in the article “Algorithmic personalization: a study of knowledge gaps and digital media literacy” in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, part of the Nature Portfolio.
Content personalization: opportunity or threat?
The main goal of the study was to analyze citizens’ knowledge of how online services tailor content to users. Personalization relies on data - from search history to location and shopping preferences - and serves to increase message relevance. But while the benefits are clear (faster access to relevant information, tailored ads), there is growing concern about the loss of privacy and informational manipulation.
The authors of the “Algorithmic personalization” report emphasize that understanding personalization mechanisms is key not only to protecting personal data but also to the ability to critically assess content. Informed individuals can influence algorithms, limit manipulation, and better protect their privacy.
Who knows more? Social differences in knowledge about algorithms
Researchers used a three-step analysis system based on an informational model, fuzzy logic method, and social classification. They asked respondents about:
- awareness that online content is personalized,
- knowledge of technical ways content is customized,
- feeling of control over what they see online.
Based on these three areas, the researchers developed knowledge metrics that include both objective understanding of how algorithms work and users’ subjective sense of influence over their digital environment. The study`s authors used data from 1,213 surveys, analyzing them with demographic variables such as age, gender, and education level. The results made it possible to define knowledge levels about personalization for different social groups with numerical values between 0 and 1 - the higher the value, the greater the user’s awareness.
| Social group | Knowledge level about personalization |
|---|---|
| Men aged 35-44, higher education | 0.812 (above average) |
| Women aged 15-24, higher education | 0.821-0.812 |
| People with vocational education | 0.661-0.672 (low scores) |
These differences show that younger users with higher education better understand how content-personalizing algorithms work. Meanwhile, those with lower education levels more often report a lack of control over what they see online. This raises questions about informational equality and the need for education.
Real-life example. Netflix and the illusion of choice
Let’s imagine two Netflix users - a thirty-year-old woman with higher education and a fifty-year-old manual worker. Although both open the same platform, the algorithm shows them completely different recommendations. She sees political documentaries and indie films, while he gets comedies and entertainment shows. Both believe they have a choice, but in reality, they watch what the algorithm deems suitable. If they are unaware of this mechanism, they may wrongly assume it’s the result of their “free will.”
This is exactly the issue raised in the report by Moravec and his co-authors - the invisible hand of the algorithm guides the user, who often doesn’t realize it.
Education as the answer
The research team proposes concrete solutions. Their analytical-information system allows for nuanced evaluation of citizens’ knowledge, accounting for demographic differences. Notably:
- the system works regardless of the number of criteria or questions,
- it can be adapted to other regions or countries,
- it enables the implementation of educational programs tailored to specific social groups.
Thanks to this tool, it is possible, for example, to identify groups most vulnerable to manipulation and include them in specialized media education programs. As the “Algorithmic personalization” report shows, such actions are necessary - especially in the face of the risk that personalization deepens social divides, traps users in information bubbles, and facilitates the spread of disinformation.
Among the researchers’ plans is the development of software that will allow practical application of the methodology in different contexts. The next step is to analyze factors influencing the acceptance of personalized content and to study the relationships between perceived disinformation risks and trust in media.
The study by Moravec and his co-authors is not only a scientific analysis but also a call to action for policymakers - from NGOs to state institutions - not to ignore differences in digital competencies. The more people understand how algorithms work, the lower the risk that society will become a passive recipient of manufactured content.
* * *
More about the study: Moravec V., Hynek N., Skare M., Gavurova B., Polishchuk V. (2025). Algorithmic personalization: a study of knowledge gaps and digital media literacy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04593-6
COMMERCIAL BREAK
New articles in section Media industry
Who trusts articles written by artificial intelligence? Results of a study from China
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Young readers trust machines more than human writers. When they consume news, they prefer the cool objectivity of algorithms over human emotions. They believe that articles created by AI are objective. As they interact with these texts more frequently, they rarely notice any harmful biases in them.
Who really controls the news on the internet? A study from Spain
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Analysis of more than thirteen thousand articles reveals behind-the-scenes mechanisms of spanish digital media. Left-wing portals are responsible for 50.33 percent of texts on lobbying. The energy lobby generates 63.41 percent of publications. Only one daily newspaper evaluates pressure groups positively.
Children and artificial intelligence. The generation of a global experiment is growing
Joanna Sokołowska, UNICEF Polska
A UNICEF analysis based on new data from 10 countries shows that at least 20 million children have already used artificial intelligence (AI). Many of them are ahead of adults, adopting these technologies at a pace more than three times faster.
See articles on a similar topic:
Yellow Press. What is Yellow Journalism?
Krzysztof Fiedorek
The terms "yellow press" and "yellow journalism" are often used pejoratively to describe journalistic practices focused on sensationalism, gossip, and emotions rather than objective facts. Let’s explore their origins, distinctive features, and impact on society.
Influencers and social video rule information. Digital News Report 2025
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Seconds of vertical clips set the future of news. TikTok, YouTube and an army of influencers pull viewers away from TV sets and newspaper pages. Whoever masters this new pulse seizes not only attention but also control of the story.
Selfish Trap: A New Social Influence Technique
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Three psychologists from SWPS University have described a social influence method suggesting people are more willing to complete a task if it highlights a quality important to them, such as loyalty, intelligence, or rationality.
Press Readership in Poland. The Wealthy Read Ten Times More Often
BARD
Wealthy individuals in Poland read newspapers and magazines up to ten times more frequently than the average Pole, according to a report by Polish Readership Research. They mainly read monthly magazines and dedicate about an hour per day to reading. Only 18% of people in this group do not read any press at all.
