In “Argentina 4.0: The Citizen Revolution” (Prometeo, 2013), I propose the need to renew the relationship between citizens and politics by leveraging new information and communication technologies. I was (and still am) concerned about strengthening democratic and republican dynamics to counter the resurgence of populism.
The concepts of universal access, open standards, and decentralization—core principles of the internet—are naturally aligned with the democratic principles of openness and individual freedom, which are themselves rooted in the Enlightenment and the federalist tradition.
Would social media be useful for rebuilding citizens’ relationship with politics and, thus, improving the quality of democracy?
The idea of linking technology with political practice and democratic development is not new.
“Teledemocracy” (Ted Baker, 1981) was the term used to describe how television and radio contributed to the dissemination of information and political debates that enhanced citizen participation. Later, the emergence of computers introduced the concept of “cyberdemocracy” or “electronic democracy” (Hagen, 1997).
For some time, these three terms were used interchangeably, until the mid-2000s, when the rise of Web 2.0 and social media brought a new dimension: interaction between network members. Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms modernized processes of consultation, dialogue, and interaction between communities and elected authorities, giving rise to the concept of “e-democracy” or “digital democracy.”
Between 2010 and 2012, social media helped mobilize protests in the world’s major financial centers and facilitated the coordination of popular uprisings during the Arab Spring (across North Africa and the Middle East, demanding political and social reforms and full respect for human rights) as well as other social movements that spread through Europe (¡Democracia Real Ya!) and the Americas (Occupy Wall Street).
“Citizens from different corners of the planet, living under various political regimes and with differing levels of economic prosperity, unleashed a series of protests and demands” (Argentina 4.0: The Citizen Revolution, p.33) of global scope against the political and economic situations of their countries, encompassing around 1,000 cities in approximately 90 countries.
From the beginning, Web 2.0 seemed more effective at organizing protests than at building proposals. More efficient for mobilizing people “against” something than for helping them organize alternatives.
But we would see more in the following years. In 2016, a new debate emerged about the bias of internet search engines associated with algorithm usage (a formula that ranks responses to a query on Google, Bing, etc.).
Indeed, “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” do not present all available options or opinions on a topic. Instead, they limit the information provided in each search based on previous searches, location, etc., reinforcing the preferences previously expressed by the user.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal, the Brexit vote in the UK, and the election of Trump in 2016 were highlighted for their use of these technologies to attempt to influence and manipulate public opinion. In contrast, a healthy democracy crucially depends on giving people the opportunity to enrich their understanding by confronting opposing ideas.
Recent developments in artificial intelligence (based on machine learning and Big Data) increase these risks by enabling the dissemination of false news and hate speech, compelling us to consider governance mechanisms for technologies that safeguard democratic and republican dynamics.
A recent study published in Frontiers in Political Science reviewed 230 articles (derived from the Scopus database and processed with VOSviewer) on “digital democracy” and identified three dominant concepts: democracy, internet, and movement. It notes that the digital era has both positive and negative impacts on democracy, that public knowledge is key, and that there is strong elite control in virtual democracy.
The 2024 conferences on democracy and digital citizenship addressed concerns about: i) integration of emerging technologies (AI, blockchain, metaverse) into democratic processes; ii) algorithmic influence on democracy; iii) false narratives and erosion of trust in institutions; iv) development of innovative tools and regulatory frameworks; v) promotion of media literacy; vi) risks of AI-generated content and the impact of deepfakes on elections; and vii) strategies to preserve public trust in information ecosystems through informed communities and defenders of democratic values.
In their paper “Digital Democracy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” (2024), Claudio Noveli and Giulia Sandri evaluate four dimensions: citizenship, participation, representation, and the public sphere. They note that “the predictive capabilities of AI change the dynamics of political competition, raising ethical questions about manipulation and the legitimacy of democracy.”
Therefore, these authors argue that “improving citizens’ digital media literacy is crucial. This includes educating people to critically evaluate information, recognize misinformation, and understand the underlying mechanisms of AI and digital platforms.”
This education must be complemented by smart, robust regulation that supervises the use of AI and social networks, prevents their misuse, ensures transparency in AI-based decision-making, and protects user privacy and data security.
Unlike what was envisioned at the dawn of e-democracy, the arrival of new technologies poses very high risks that can destabilize democracies. Social media have been effectively used to deteriorate the quality of political debate and the party system.
If we do not act quickly and decisively to build a safe and trustworthy digital ecosystem, the opportunities to improve the relationship between citizens and the public sphere that digital democracy promised could be lost in the tunnel of time.
