skip to main content
10.1145/3614321.3614352acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicegovConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The politics of digital technologies: Reimagining social participation in the digital age

Published: 20 November 2023 Publication History

Abstract

This essay investigates the complex relationship between digital technologies and social participation, focusing on the challenges and opportunities the technosphere presents. Utilizing Twitter as a case study, the essay critically examines the power dynamics, values, and interests that shape the design and implementation of digital technologies and their impact on social participation. The framework presented in this essay identifies two interconnected layers of social participation in the digital context: 1) employing technology as a tool for social participation and 2) actively engaging in the construction and political dynamics of technology itself. Through an interdisciplinary approach, the study argues that the current privatization of the technosphere and its governance by a few powerful corporations poses significant threats to democracy, equity, and the public interest. The essay claims strategies for fostering democratic engagement within the technosphere, such as developing public digital infrastructure, implementing transparency and accountability measures, and empowering civil society. By actively involving diverse stakeholders in developing, governance, and evaluating digital technologies, this essay advocates for a more inclusive and democratic technosphere that genuinely serves the public interest. This essay contributes to the academic discourse on the role of digital technologies in shaping our social, political, and economic lives and calls for further interdisciplinary research to explore the technosphere for democratic participation. By critically examining and addressing the power dynamics inherent in digital technologies, we can work towards a more inclusive, equitable, and democratic digital ecosystem.

References

[1]
Sofia Ranchordás. 2017. Digital agoras: democratic legitimacy, online participation and the case of Uber-petitions. In: The Theory and Practice of Legislation. Volume 5, 1: Crowdsourcing Legislation: New Ways of Engaging the Public. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2017.1279431.
[2]
Karin Hansson, Kheira Belkacem, Love Ekenberg. 2014. Open Government and Democracy: A Research Review. In: Social Science Computer Review. Volume 33, Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314560847.
[3]
Howard Rheingold. 1993. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-60870-7.
[4]
Nicholas Negroponte. 1995. Being digital. Vintage Books.
[5]
Cass R. Sunstein. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
[6]
James S. Fishkin. 1997. The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. Yale University Press.
[7]
Clay Shirky. 2008. Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. Penguin Books.
[8]
Manuel Castells. 2012. Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. Polity Press.
[9]
Patrick Dunleavy, Helen Margetts, Simon Bastow, Jane Tinkler. 2006. Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press. ISBN-13: 978-0199547005. 304 pages.
[10]
Andrew Chadwick. 2009. Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 9-41.
[11]
Jarl K. Kampen, Kris Snijkers. (2003). E-Democracy: A Critical Evaluation of the Ultimate E-Dream. In: Social Science Computer Review. Volume 21, Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303256095.
[12]
Zach Bastick. (2017). Digital Limits of Government: The Failure of E-Democracy. In: Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT,volume 25). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54142-6_1.
[13]
Jan A. G. M. van Dijk. 2005. The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage Publications. University of Twente, Netherlands. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-deepening-divide/book226556.
[14]
Eszter Hargittai. 2010. Digital natives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the "net generation". Sociological Inquiry, 80(1).
[15]
Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs
[16]
Virginia Eubanks. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
[17]
Juliana Romualdo Correa, Ergon Cugler de Moraes Silva. 2021. Por trás do “Tik Tok vs Instagram”: soft power e a disputa da realidade. Le Monde Diplomatique Brasil. Retrieved April 25, 2023. https://diplomatique.org.br/por-tras-do-tik-tok-vs-instagram-soft-power-e-a-disputa-da-realidade/.
[18]
Douglas Schuler, Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. ISBN 9780805809510. 334 Pages. https://www.routledge.com/Participatory-Design-Principles-and-Practices/Schuler-Namioka/p/book/9780805809510.
[19]
Bruno Latour. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press.
[20]
Langdon Winner. 1980. Do artifacts have politics?. Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? (Winter, 1980), pp. 121-136 (16 pages). https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652.
[21]
John Law, Annemarie Mol. 1995. Notes on Materiality and Sociality. The Sociological Review, 43, 274–294.
[22]
Max Horkheimer. 1972. Critical Theory: Selected Essays. Herder and Herder.
[23]
Herbert Marcuse. 1964. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Beacon Press.
[24]
Jürgen Habermas. 1970. Toward a Rational Society. Beacon Press.
[25]
Andrew Feenberg. 1991. Critical Theory of Technology. Oxford University Press.
[26]
Andrew Feenberg. 1999. Questioning technology. Routledge.
[27]
Andrew Feenberg. 2002. Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. Oxford University Press.
[28]
Andrew Feenberg. 1995. Alternative Modernity: The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory. University of California Press.
[29]
Wiebe E. Bijker. 1995. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press.
[30]
Trevor J. Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1984. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399-441. https://www.jstor.org/stable/285355.
[31]
Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor J. Pinch. 1989. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262517607/the-social-construction-of-technological-systems/.
[32]
Wiebe E. Bijker, John Law. 1992. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press.
[33]
Peter K. Haff. 2014. Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules. The Anthropocene Review, 1(2), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614530575.
[34]
[30] Trevor J. Pinch, Wiebe E. Bijker. 1984. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004.
[35]
Zeynep Tufekci. 2017. Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
[36]
Michel Bauwens; Vasilis Kostakis. 2014. From the communism of capital to capital for the commons: Towards an open co-operativism. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 12(1), 356-361. https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/561.
[37]
Frank Pasquale, F. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press.
[38]
Jaeho Cho, Saifuddin Ahmed, Martin Hilbert,Billy Liu, Jonathan Luu. (2020). Do Search Algorithms Endanger Democracy? An Experimental Investigation of Algorithm Effects on Political Polarization. In: Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Volume 64, 2020 - Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1757365.
[39]
Tarleton Gillespie. 2018. Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/9780300261431/custodians-of-the-internet.
[40]
Zizi Papacharissi. 2014. Affective Publics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199999736.003.0006.
[41]
Ulrike Klinger, Jakob Svensson. 2018. The end of media logics? On algorithms and agency. New Media & Society. Volume 20, Issue 12; https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818779750.
[42]
Yufei Ding, Jason Ansel, Kalyan Veeramachaneni, Xipeng Shen, Una-May O'Reilly, Saman Amarasinghe. 2015. Autotuning algorithmic choice for input sensitivity. ACM SIGPLAN. Volume 50, Issue 603. pp 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1145/2813885.2737969.
[43]
Kate Crawford 2016. Can an Algorithm be Agonistic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics. Science, Technology, & Human Values. Volume 41, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915589635.
[44]
Axel Bruns, Jean Burgess. 2012. Researching news discussion on Twitter: New methodologies. Journalism Studies, 13(5-6), 801-814. https://snurb.info/files/2012/Researching%20News%20Discussion%20on%20Twitter.pdf.
[45]
Zeynep Tufekci. 2014. Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday Volume 19, Number 7 - 7 July 2014. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.4901.
[46]
Alfred Hermida. 2010. Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 297-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512781003640703.
[47]
Kate Crawford. 2009. Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 23(4), 525-535. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903003270.
[48]
Peter Dahlgren. 2005. The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
[49]
Danah Boyd, Scott Golder, Gilad Lotan. 2010. Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.412
[50]
Paolo Gerbaudo. 2012. Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. Pluto Press. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/30772.
[51]
W. Lance Bennett, Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661.
[52]
Sandra González-Bailón, Javier Borge-Holthoefer, Yamir Moreno. 2013. Broadcasters and hidden influentials in online protest diffusion. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 943-965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479371.
[53]
Kevin Munger. 2017. Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior, 39(3), 629-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9373-5.
[54]
Johan Farkas, Jannick Schou. 2018. Fake news as a floating signifier: Hegemony, antagonism and the politics of falsehood. Javnost - The Public, 25(3), 298-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1463047.
[55]
Twitter (Company). 2021. Sharing our latest transparency update, marking decade long commitment. Twitter Blog. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2022/ttr-20.
[56]
Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2015. Algorithmic accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 398-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976411.
[57]
Mike Ananny, Kate Crawford. 2018. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645.
[58]
Stefania Milan, Emiliano Treré. 2019. Big Data from the South(s): Beyond data universalism. Television & New Media, 20(4), 319-335. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1527476419837739.
[59]
Kate Mannell, Eden T. Smith. 2022. Alternative Social Media and the Complexities of a More Participatory Culture: A View From Scuttlebutt. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221122448.
[60]
Taina Bucher. 2017. The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30-44. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)E-participation in energy transitions: What does it mean? Chances and challenges within Germany's EnergiewendeTechnological Forecasting and Social Change10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123839210(123839)Online publication date: Jan-2025

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICEGOV '23: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
September 2023
509 pages
ISBN:9798400707421
DOI:10.1145/3614321
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 November 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico

Conference

ICEGOV 2023

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 350 of 865 submissions, 40%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)114
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 24 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)E-participation in energy transitions: What does it mean? Chances and challenges within Germany's EnergiewendeTechnological Forecasting and Social Change10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123839210(123839)Online publication date: Jan-2025

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media