This chapter explores the influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on digital democracy, focusing on four main areas: citizenship, participation, representation, and the public sphere. It traces the evolution from electronic to virtual and network democracy, underscoring how each stage has broadened democratic engagement through technology. Focusing on digital citizenship, the chapter examines how AI can improve online engagement while posing privacy risks and fostering identity stereotyping. Regarding political participation, it highlights AI's dual role in mobilising civic (...) actions and spreading misinformation. Regarding representation, AI's involvement in electoral processes can enhance voter registration, e-voting, and the efficiency of result tabulation but raises concerns regarding privacy and public trust. Also, AI's predictive capabilities shift the dynamics of political competition, posing ethical questions about manipulation and the legitimacy of democracy. Finally, the chapter examines how integrating AI and digital technologies can facilitate democratic political advocacy and personalised communication. However, this also comes with higher risks of misinformation and targeted propaganda. (shrink)

Although successive generations of digital technology have become increasingly powerful in the past 20 years, digital democracy has yet to realize its potential for deliberative transformation. The undemocratic exploitation of massive social media systems continued this trend, but it only worsened an existing problem of modern democracies, which were already struggling to develop deliberative infrastructure independent of digital technologies. There have been many creative conceptions of civic tech, but implementation has lagged behind innovation. This article argues (...) for implementing one such vision of digital democracy through the establishment of a public corporation. Modeled on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the United States, this entity would foster the creation of new digital technology by providing a stable source of funding to nonprofit technologists, interest groups, civic organizations, government, researchers, private companies, and the public. Funded entities would produce and maintain software infrastructure for public benefit. The concluding sections identify what circumstances might create and sustain such an entity. (shrink)

This paper aims to answer a basic question: is it possible to forge democratic citizenship through various online tools that are already available? To answer this question, I introduce the conception of digital political identities, i.e., the ways in which online environments contribute to creating, maintaining, and changing political identities. Because the well-functioning of democracy rests on citizens with the ability to make informed decisions, vote, and engage in public deliberation, this paper is looking for new and innovative (...) online tools for participating in meaningful online deliberation, acquiring accurate information in the digital space, and making informed voting decisions. By introducing the conception of digital political identities and linking it to online tools that can improve democracy and citizen engagement, I aim to make further progress in cutting edge research on the relationship between digital technologies and democracy. In a nutshell, I am mainly concerned with proposing and defending a normative framework for the use of various online tools that could foster digital democracy. (shrink)

Abstract The rise of social media was initially hailed as a revolutionary force for democratizing information and empowering citizens. However, the increasing dominance of profit-oriented business models has shifted the purpose of these platforms from serving the public interest to maximizing corporate revenue. This paper explores how the monetization of visibility, algorithmic manipulation, and paid promotions have undermined the democratic promise of the internet. It further analyzes the societal implications of this trend, including information inequality, the manipulation of public discourse, (...) and the erosion of authentic digital participation. Finally, it proposes pathways toward reestablishing a democratic digital ecosystem rooted in truth, equity, and public good. -/- . (shrink)

This paper discusses the influence of digital media and its online presence on freedom of speech in Vietnam by analyzing three different kinds of emerging online media tools: blogosphere, electronic/online newspapers, and social media networks (SNSs). As a single- party socialist republic country, the controlling power of the media lays in the hands of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). The Doi Moi reform in 1986, marketization and the introduction of the Internet in 1997 have slightly transformed the Vietnamese (...) media environment, however, it remains highly restricted. This paper explores several sources including academic research, research articles, as well as analysis of online press coverage in the Vietnamese media environment to examine governmental control over the media which influences the free flow of information. Understanding digital media developments within the Vietnamese online media environment helps us to understand how Vietnamese netizens utilize these tools to maximize their online freedom of speech, the CPV"s approach to regulate the Internet in order to maintain its legitimacy, and several challenges facing Vietnamese netizens including bloggers, journalists, and the wider public in the digital age. (shrink)

Democracy has long been celebrated as the most legitimate form of governance, yet it rests on a foundational tension that remains unresolved: should democratic authority derive from the will of the majority, or from the quality of the decisions it produces? This paper examines the classical debate between popular sovereignty and epistemic governance through the lens of con-temporary digital media, arguing that platforms such as TikTok and Instagram have introduced unprecedented challenges to the epistemic foundations of democratic decision-making. (...) Drawing on democratic theory from Plato to Habermas, and engaging with contemporary scholars inclu-ding Jason Brennan, David Estlund, and Hélène Landemore, the paper traces how algorithmic content curation, viral misinformation, and engagement-driven platform design systematically distort the conditions necessary for informed democratic participation. However, the paper also demonstrates that epistemic alternatives to democracy—including epistocracy and technocratic guardianship—inevitably confront the problem of self-legitimating authority, as illustrated by the Iranian theocratic model. The paper proposes that deliberative democratic innovations, such as citizens’ assemblies and structured public deliberation, offer a viable middle path that im-proves the epistemic quality of collective decisions without sacrificing democratic legitimacy. The paper concludes by outlining a framework for democratic resilience in the digital age that centres on institutional design, platform accountability, and civic epistemic infrastructure. (shrink)

Deliberative democracy depends on carefully designed institutional frameworks — such as participant selection, facilitation methods, and decision-making mechanisms — that shape how deliberation performs. However, identifying optimal institutional designs for specific contexts remains challenging when relying solely on real-world observations or laboratory experiments: they can be expensive, ethically and methodologically tricky, or too limited in scale to give us clear answers. Computational experiments offer a complementary approach, enabling researchers to conduct large-scale investigations while systematically analyzing complex dynamics, emergent and (...) unexpected collective behavior, and risks or opportunities associated with novel democratic designs. Therefore, this paper explores Digital Twin (DT) technology as a computational testing ground for deliberative systems (with potential applicability to broader institutional analysis). By constructing dynamic models that simulate real-world deliberation, DTs allow researchers and policymakers to rigorously test "what-if" scenarios across diverse institutional configurations in a controlled virtual environment. This approach facilitates evidence-based assessment of novel designs using synthetically generated data, bypassing the constraints of real-world or lab-based experimentation, and without societal disruption. The paper also discusses the limitations of this new methodological approach and suggests where future research should focus. (shrink)

Deliberative democracy relies on well-designed institutional frameworks-like participant selection, facilitation, and decision-making. Yet identifying the best design for a given context is challenging, as real-world and lab-based studies are often costly, time-consuming, and difficult to replicate. This commentary proposes Digital Twin (DT) technology as a regulatory sandbox for deliberative democracy. By simulating dynamic, data-driven models of real or synthetic communities, DTs allow researchers and policymakers to test alternative designs through controlled "what-if" scenarios, free from real-world constraints. The (...) commentary also examines limitations and key directions for future research. (shrink)

This paper argues that social media companies’ power to regulate communication in the public sphere illustrates a novel type of domination. The idea is that, since social media companies can partially dictate the terms of citizens’ political participation in the public sphere, they can arbitrarily interfere with the choices individuals make qua citizens. I contend that social media companies dominate citizens in two different ways. First, I focus on the cases in which social media companies exercise direct control over political (...) speech. They exercise quasi-public power over citizens because their regulation of speech on social media platforms implies the capacity to arbitrarily interfere with citizens’ democratic contestation in the political system. Second, companies’ algorithmic governance entails the capacity to interfere with citizens’ choices about what mode of discursive engagement they endorse in their relationships with fellow citizens. By raising the cost of deliberative engagement, companies narrow citizens’ choice menu. (shrink)

This article develops the concept of 'manufacture of dissent ' and ‘moral outrage networks ’ to explain how digital capitalism reorganises democratic communication around the production, circulation, and monetisation of moral anger. It argues that contemporary democracies are not collapsing but mutating into forms of decorative democracy, in which institutional procedures persist while their deliberative and integrative functions are hollowed out by market-driven media infrastructures. Under conditions of platform capitalism, dissent is no longer primarily a corrective force directed (...) at power but a commodified resource optimised for attention, engagement, and perpetual conflict. Drawing on political economy, media theory, moral psychology, and communication studies, the article analyses how outrage operates as a stable grammar rather than an episodic emotion, structuring trust, untrust, loyalty, and hostility across digital publics. It shows how informational inequality, algorithmic mediation, and strategic interventions such as cognitive infiltration transform dissent into a managed and often ineffectual spectacle, while simultaneously eroding social capital and shared reality. The article further examines the emotional mechanisms of anger and ressentiment, the rise of grievance politics, and the emergence of performative or kayfabe politics, in which publics knowingly participate in staged conflicts that sustain moral mobilisation without enabling collective resolution. The central claim is that digital capitalism has shifted democratic governance from the manufacture of consent to the manufacture of dissent, producing a communicative environment characterised by permanent polarisation, declining trust, and the planned obsolescence of communication itself. In this environment, political anger circulates freely but rarely translates into structural change, while democracy survives increasingly as form rather than substance. (shrink)

This Open Access book explains the philosophy, design principles, and community organization of Decidim and provides essential insights into how the platform works. Decidim is the world leading digital infrastructure for participatory democracy, built entirely and collaboratively as free software, and used by more than 500 institutions with over three million users worldwide. The platform allows any organization (government, association, university, NGO, neighbourhood, or cooperative) to support multitudinous processes of participatory democracy. In a context dominated by corporate-owned (...) digital platforms, in the era of increasing social structuring via Artificial Intelligence, Decidim stands as a public or community owned platform for collective human intelligence. Yet, the project is much more than its technological features. Decidim is in itself a crossroad of the various dimensions of the networked society, a detailed practical map of its complexities and conflicts. Theauthors distinguish three general dimensions of the project: (1) the political - shedding light on the democratic model that Decidim promotes and its impact on public policies and organizations, (2) the technopolitical - explaining how this technology is democratically designed and managed to produce and protect certain political effects, and (3) the technical - presenting the conditions of production, operation, and success of the project. This book systematically covers those three levels in an academically sound, technologically consistent, and politically innovative manner. Serving as a useful resource and handbook for the use of Decidim, it will not only appeal to students and scholars interested in participatory and digital democracy but also to professionals, policy-makers, and a wider audience interested in learning more about the Decidim platform. (shrink)

Within democracies, the capacity to influence political outcomes through speech depends not only on the right to express oneself, but also on the opportunity to reach relevant audiences. In this paper, I argue that the unequal distribution of algorithmic reach on social media platforms undermines equality of opportunity for political influence (EOPI), which is a central democratic ideal. Drawing on Niko Kolodny’s work, I contend that current recommendation algorithms create and perpetuate informal inequalities by concentrating attention among a small minority (...) of already-amplified speakers while systematically marginalizing others. To address this problem, I propose recommendation floors as a mechanism for equalizing political speech. To help users achieve meaningful participation, each verified account would receive guaranteed minimum recommendation for up to a limited number of political posts per week. Although this measure represents one component of the structural reforms needed to move the digital public sphere closer to democratic ideals, it offers a feasible pathway to reducing informal inequalities in political influence online. (shrink)

When we participate in political debate or protests, we are judged by how we look, which clothes we wear, by our skin colour, gender and body language. This results in exclusions and limits our freedom of expression. The Politics of Becoming explores radical democratic acts of disidentification to counter this problem. Anonymity in masked protest, graffiti, and online de-bate interrupts our everyday identities. This allows us to live our multiple selves. In the digital age, anonymity becomes an inherent part (...) of everyday communication. Through our smart devices we express our selves differently. As cyborgs, our identities are disrupted and reassembled. We curate self-representations on social media, create avatars, share selfies and choose the skin colour of our emojis. The Politics of Becoming encourages us to engage in a revolution of the self. Democratic pluralism is not only a matter of institutional design but also about how we express our identities. Inner revolutions change our personal realities and plant a seed for democratic futures. (shrink)

Democracy in its currently dominant liberal form has proven supportive of unprecedented human flourishing. However, it also appears increasingly plagued by political polarization, strained to cope with the digitalization of the political discourse, and threatened by authoritarian backlash. A growing sense of the anthropic risks—with runaway climate change as the leading example—thus often elicits concern regarding democracy’s capability of mitigating them. Apparently, lacking a sufficient degree of the citizens’ consensus on the priority issues of the day, it can (...) find itself unable to muster the resolve and resources necessary to alter its “business as usual” path even where disasters loom ever larger in its track. Against these concerns, I argue that democracy’s potential remains far from depleted. While political irrationality needs to be considered a major obstacle to successfully managing the anthropic risks, many existing reform proposals appear capable of reining it in. My main suggestion is to seek ways to facilitate a speedier and more effective exploration of the landscape of the possible democratic mechanisms of collective choice. A virtual platform to support such an exploration—which I call ‘democracy’s digital playground’—may allow us to find innovative ways of managing anthropic risks without compromising our commitment to democratic values. (shrink)

Brexit has been described as “probably the most disastrous single event in British history since the second world war.” (Wolf, 2016). This paper discusses three themes to emerge from Brexit (notions of democracy and populism, and the manipulation of digital technologies), and lessons that may be drawn from these for the rest of the Union, and the EU project more broadly.

Digital sovereignty, and the question of who ultimately controls AI seems, at first glance, to be an issue that concerns only specialists, politicians and corporate entities. And yet the fight for who will win digital sovereignty has far-reaching societal implications. Drawing on five case studies, the paper argues that digital sovereignty affects everyone, whether digital users or not, and makes the case for a hybrid system of control which has the potential to offer full democratic legitimacy (...) as well as innovative flexibility. (shrink)

As the multiple issues of the digital public sphere threaten our democracies and the cohesion of our societies, most attempts for a betterment of the digital networks and platforms revolve around a risk-response approach. This paper takes the opposite approach and develops a positive definition of the ideal ethical public sphere, combining normative features with original taxonomies. In view of defining common standards for a healthy digital public sphere, this paper offers an interdisciplinary literature review, and original (...) recommendations, before discussing potential leverages for implementing these changes. The suggested ethical normative features derive from a positive approach to the digital public sphere, as ideal common standards. Sustained by the underlying assumption that the composite landscape of the media ecosystem and its different layers (networks, platforms, users) cannot be steered by government regulations alone, the normative (deontological) approach serves to understand and justify the need for a normative approach, to help envision new pathways for an ethical transformation. (shrink)

This book systematically analyzes the structural dilemmas of modern democratic and liberal institutions from the perspective of scientific philosophy and complex systems theory, proposing an alternative paradigm of civilizational governance grounded in universal laws. Through a structured ten-chapter framework, it uncovers the deep-rooted causes of contemporary democratic disorder, including rising informational entropy, cognitive biases, institutional entropy, and multi-level coupling imbalances. The early chapters critique the mythologization of democracy and freedom and their role in driving polarization and governance fragmentation. The (...) middle chapters examine universal hierarchical structures, the principle of entropy increase, complex systems theory, and human cognitive limits, revealing the natural constraints governing civilizational operation. The book introduces the Constrained Freedom Governance Model, emphasizing freedom embedded within institutional boundaries, the triple constraints of technology–ethics–institution, the rebalancing of elite responsibility and public oversight, and collaborative governance structures in the AI era. Through case studies from the United States, Europe, Latin America, and digital populism, it identifies the structural roots of institutional disorder and the necessary conditions for long-term civilizational resilience. Ultimately, it argues that the core political wisdom of civilization lies in aligning governance with natural and universal laws, achieving a dynamic balance of freedom, order, and stability, allowing political systems to maintain long-term self-sustenance and sustainable evolution. This work offers both a profound critique of modern democratic politics and a scientifically grounded philosophical guide for institutional design in high-complexity, globalized, and AI-driven societies. (shrink)

It is becoming increasingly common for authoritarian regimes to leverage digital technologies to surveil, repress and manipulate their citizens. Experts typically refer to this practice as digital authoritarianism (DA). Existing definitions of DA consistently presuppose a politically repressive agent intentionally exploiting digital technologies to pursue authoritarian ends. I refer to this as the intention-based definition. This paper argues that this definition is untenable as a general description of DA. I begin by illustrating the current predominance of the (...) intention-based definition (Section 2). Section 3 then presents four counterexamples to this definition: benign surveillance; digital sovereignty; attention-harvesting algorithms; and tech-induced loneliness. In each case, we witness authoritarianism being promoted by digital technologies without any evidence of this being intentionally caused by politically repressive agents. Based on these observations, I contend that the intention-based definition is underinclusive and is therefore unsustainable. Section 4 outlines an improved definition of DA – what I call the promotion-based definition. Since this more expansive definition does not posit intentional, politically repressive agency as a precondition of DA, it can accommodate the counterexamples discussed in Section 3. Moreover, it enables us to catch a broader spectrum of cases of DA, such as tech-induced loneliness, which those adhering to the intention-based definition are prone to overlook. After outlining further practical benefits of the promotion-based definition, I argue that we still need to distinguish between intentional and unintentional forms of DA since they call for distinct types of remedial action. -/- . (shrink)

What would it take for AI systems to have moral standing, and what kind of obligations might fall on us as a result? This paper summarizes contemporary debates related to these questions. Topics include: how different theories of the basis of moral standing might apply to AI systems; what kind of moral importance our treatment of AI systems might have if they have any moral standing at all; possible tensions between respecting the moral status of future AI systems and the (...) goal of achieving AI alignment; economic and political rights; the significance of empirical and moral uncertainty; and what practical measures, if any, should be implemented now to address the possibility that AI systems exhibiting morally significant mental states might appear within the not-too-distant future – assuming they are not already here. (shrink)

Democracy research faces a longstanding experimentation bottleneck. Potential institutional innovations remain untested because human-subject studies are slow, expensive, and ethically fraught. This paper argues that digital homunculi, that is, GenAI-powered agents role-playing humans in diverse institutional settings, could offer a way to break through the bottleneck. In contrast to the legacy agent-based modeling, building complexity from transparent simple rules, the digital homunculi methodology aims to extract latent human behavioral knowledge from opaque large language models. To this ends, (...) it designs multi-agent interactions as elicitation devices to trigger in LLMs human-like behavior that can be recorded as synthetic data. However, the validity of synthetic data remains an open question. Success requires that accurate, coherent, transferable models of humans (“little humans” - homunculi) already lurk within GenAI’s inscrutable matrices and can be lured out via the social simulation role-play exercise. At the same time, to the extent these attempts are successful, they promise to completely transform the political economy of institutional research from scarcity to abundance. To help mitigate the number of challenges along the way to such success, I propose concrete validation strategies including behavioral back-testing via knowledge cutoffs, and outline infrastructure requirements for rigorous evaluation. The stakes are high: legacy democratic institutions develop at much slower pace than the surrounding technological landscape. If they falter, we lack a repository of tested backup alternatives. Breaking through the experimentation bottleneck must be a priority and digital homunculi may be quickly maturing into a methodology capable of achieving this feat. (shrink)

Democratic legitimacy requires equal votes. Democratic performance requires informed advice. This paper proposes a parallel, non‑binding advisory channel that aggregates collective intelligence with rule‑based regularity. One person one vote remains unchanged for decisions. The advisory layer is transparent, auditable, and public. Influence in the advisory layer is weighted by domain‑specific merit and moderated by an ethics multiplier. Merit reflects verifiable expertise, practical impact, peer recognition, and knowledge dissemination. Ethics covers honesty, civility, and conflicts of interest. Influence is earned, scoped to (...) relevant fields, decays over time, and never becomes a veto. Minority reports are preserved. AI assists classification, summarization, and forecasting. Humans set and update rules. No machine has decision rights. The model differs from technocracy and epistocracy by keeping authority with elected officials and equal citizens. The paper details safeguards (open rules, versioned parameters, audits, appeals, privacy by design), inclusion pathways (credential‑lite, multilingual, low‑bandwidth access), and risks and mitigations (elite capture, credential bias, gaming, digital divide, “brain drain”). It outlines applications from national to municipal and organizational contexts and proposes evaluation metrics: uptake by officials, ex‑post accuracy, decision latency, participation breadth, trust shifts, and reproducibility. (shrink)

The liberal democratic regimes rest on a well-developed public sphere accessible to all citizens that favors free discussions based on reason and critical debate and serves as a space where public opinion is formed through reasoned dialogue. The new digital technologies disrupted many parts of contemporary democratic societies and transformed their public sphere. Digital transformation alters industries and markets, changing the perceived subjective value, satisfaction, and usefulness of goods or services and displacing established companies and products. Within the (...) political realm, digital transformation creates a cleavage between the vulnerable populations who are ill-informed and lack digital fluency and politicians who tend to learn about peoples‟ problems not to deal with them but to weaponize new technologies to engineer elections and win power. The rise of misinformation and disinformation undermines public trust in democratic institutions and discourages or incapacitates citizens from engaging in debates within the public sphere. On the other hand, the digital transformation of the public sphere empowers ordinary people to aggregate in various publics and counteract the domination of the mainstream parties. Our paper aims to answer whether new technologies provide citizens with ways to counter the undemocratic tendencies caused by digital transformation and engage actively in the public sphere. (shrink)

In einem diskursiv ausgeruhten Beitrag zu einem kurzzeitig viral hocherhitzten Artikel zur ‚Big-Data-Bombe’ beobachtet Jan Lietz vor einigen Wochen eine problematische Diskursverknappung: Blinde Annahme auf der einen und unausgewogene Kritik auf der anderen Seite hätten zum Ausbleiben eines produktiven Dissenses geführt. Mit dieser Diagnose hat Lietz sicherlich recht. Doch scheint sich in den Reaktionen auf den Artikel und ihrer Dynamik nicht allein eine ‚Verknappung’ des Diskurses abzuzeichnen; mehr noch handelt es sich um dessen ‚systematische’ Einebnung. Es wurde vor allem deutlich, (...) dass im Milieu einer fragwürdigen Techno-logie die Möglichkeit zur Kritik selbst prekär wird. (…) An dieser Stelle ließe sich schlussfolgern, dass es neben einer demokratischen Debatte um die Urheberschaft und Verfügungsmacht über unsere Daten (bzgl. WählerInnen-Targetings) einerseits und die Zukunft der EU-Datenschutzgrundverordnung andererseits, heute auch einer Auseinandersetzung mit der ‚kritischen’ Frage bedarf, wie „die Digitalisierung den Charakter des Politischen überhaupt affiziert.“ Vor diesem Horizont wäre es schließlich essentiell, Netzwerke nicht mit einem per se politisch tragfähigen Gesellschaftskonzept zu verwechseln, sondern vielmehr über das Verhältnis zwischen Technik und Politik – jenseits der Pole blinder Technophilie auf der einen und unproduktivem Ressentiment auf der anderen Seite – zu diskutieren. Das hieße dann aber auch, über ‚revolutionäre’ Entwicklungen und Verschiebungen zu beraten, die Günther Anders schon Anfang der 1980er Jahre diagnostizierte; dass, sofern die Technik nämlich erst einmal in die politischen Strukturen Einzug gehalten hat, „von Tag zu Tag weniger“ gelte, „daß sie sich innerhalb des politischen Rahmens entwickelt. Vielmehr tritt dann eine wirkliche Umwälzung ein, das heißt: dann nimmt die Bedeutung der Technik so überhand, daß sich das politische Geschehen schließlich in deren Rahmen abspielt.“. (shrink)

Mark Coeckelbergh’s recent book, Why AI Undermines Democracy (2024), argues compellingly that artificial intelligence (AI) intrinsically threatens democratic governance by facilitating epistemic manipulation, deepening knowledge asymmetries, and fostering political alienation. While acknowledging Coeckelbergh’s valuable insights into democratic vulnerabilities exacerbated by digital technologies, this essay critiques his foundational assumption that AI inherently possesses political or epistemic agency. Drawing upon fiduciary epistemic theory—particularly elaborated in my works ‘Epistemic Justice and Institutional Responsibility in Academia’ (205) and “Directors’ Epistemic Duties and Fiduciary (...) Openness” (2025)—I propose an alternative governance framework, termed ‘epistemocracy’, which explicitly locates epistemic and moral responsibility within human institutional actors rather than technological artefacts. Unlike Coeckelbergh’s ‘technodemocracy’, epistemocracy prioritises fiduciary transparency, institutional accountability, and epistemic pluralism as foundational to democratic governance of AI. Ultimately, the essay argues that attributing inherent political agency to AI obscures crucial institutional responsibilities and weakens democratic safeguards. Recognising AI as epistemically neutral and embedding fiduciary epistemic duties into governance structures provides clearer, more robust pathways for institutional reform, democratic accountability, and sustainable epistemic justice in AI governance. (shrink)

The text discusses the challenges of regulating clinical germline editing, balancing its potential benefits and risks. It critiques the feasibility of full public participation in gene editing governance while advocating for pragmatic, alternative approaches. [1] Promise and Perils of Germline Editing: It could prevent genetic diseases but also raises ethical, social, and psychological concerns, including inequality, genetic enhancement pressures, and irreversible genetic modifications. [2] Public Deliberation and Regulation: Given the broad implications, public participation in regulatory decisions is crucial. However, deliberative (...) democracy, despite its promise, has not been tested in biotechnology regulation and faces significant hurdles. [3] Challenges to Effective Public Engagement: Lack of public awareness and interest in biotechnology ethics; The need for scientific literacy to meaningfully engage; Deep ethical, cultural, and religious divides; Distrust in elites and vested interests shaping deliberations; High resource demands for public engagement; The global nature of biotechnology complicating regulation. [4] Failures of Public Engagement: Studies show that efforts to engage the public have been largely ineffective, often reflecting the views of vocal groups rather than producing equitable or just policies. [5] Alternative Approaches: Given these challenges, the text suggests: Improving public education and media literacy; Using digital tools for participation; Exploring hybrid models combining expert deliberation with democratic engagement; Accepting less-than-consensual decision-making models, such as modified majority rule. (shrink)

Our world is under going an enormous digital transformation. Nearly no area of our social, informational, political, economic, cultural, and biological spheres are left unchanged. What can philosophy contribute as we try to under- stand and think through these changes? How does digitization challenge past ideas of who we are and where we are headed? Where does it leave our ethical aspirations and cherished ideals of democracy, equality, privacy, trust, freedom, and social embeddedness? Who gets to decide, control, (...) and harness the powers of digitization and for which purposes? Epistemologically, do most of us understand these new mediations – and thus fabrics – of our new world? Lastly – how is the new technological landscape shaping not only our living conditions but also our collective imaginary and our self-identities? (shrink)

In this article Julian Culp offers a new conceptualization of democratic citizenship education in light of the transformations of contemporary Western societies to which the use of digital technologies has contributed. His conceptualization adopts a deliberative understanding of democracy that provides a systemic perspective on society-wide communicative arrangements and employs a nonideal, critical methodology that concentrates on overcoming democratic deficits. Based on this systemic, deliberative conception of democracy, Culp provides an analysis of the public sphere's normative deficits (...) and argues that current political communication may be systemically distorted. Drawing on this analysis, he suggests that practices of democratic citizenship education in digitized societies must not concentrate narrowly on the effective and responsible use of digital technologies. Instead, these practices should also focus on the economic and cultural conditions that are co-responsible for the structural problems of political communication as well as address the democratic deficits that are reflected in inadequate communicative arrangements. (shrink)

This chapter criticizes several methods of responding to the techniques foreign powers are widely acknowledged to be using to subvert U.S. elections. It suggests that countries do this when they have a legitimate stake in each other’s political deliberations, but no formal voice in them. It also suggests that if they accord each other such a voice, they will engage as co-deliberators with arguments, rather than trying to undermine each other’s deliberative processes; and that this will be salutary for all (...) parties. It moots several methods for giving nations such a voice, ranging from inviting representatives of foreign powers to participate in debates in each other’s high-level elections, to having representatives of all nations vote in each other’s key elections or legislative bodies, or in international bodies constituted in recognition of the need for binding global deliberation about shared issues. (shrink)

The article examines the impact of the virtual public sphere on how urban spaces are experienced and conceived in our data-driven society. It places particular emphasis on urban scale digital twins, which are virtual replicas of cities that are used to simulate environments and develop scenarios in response to policy problems. The article also investigates the shift from the technical to the socio-technical perspective within the field of smart cities. Despite the aspirations of urban scale digital twins to (...) enhance the participation of citizens in the decision-making processes relayed to urban planning strategies, the fact that they are based on a limited set of variables and processes makes them problematic. The article aims to shed light on the tension between the real and the ideal at stake during this process of abstracting sets of variables and processes in the case of urban scale digital twins. (shrink)

-/- The Invention and Evolution of Democratic Elections: From Ancient Athens to the Digital Age -/- The idea of democratic elections—where people choose their leaders and influence laws through voting—has a long and complex history that stretches back over two millennia. Though modern democracy is often associated with Western liberal states, its roots lie deep in ancient civilizations, evolving through various stages of reform, revolution, and philosophical thought. This essay traces the development of democratic elections from their earliest (...) beginnings in ancient Athens to the global systems we recognize today. -/- Ancient Beginnings: Athens and the Birth of Democracy -/- The concept of democracy originated in ancient Athens during the 5th century BCE, where it took on a radically different form from what we know today. Athenian democracy was a direct democracy, where free male citizens actively participated in political decision-making. Although only a small fraction of the population qualified as citizens—excluding women, slaves, and foreigners—Athens was the first society to institutionalize the idea that ordinary people should have a role in governance. -/- Interestingly, elections in Athens were used sparingly. Instead, most officials were selected by random lottery (sortition) to prevent corruption and ensure fairness. Elections were reserved for positions requiring special expertise, such as military generals. Despite its limitations, Athens laid the foundation for the democratic ideal: the notion that political power should derive from the people. -/- The Roman Republic: Early Representative Elements -/- Following Athens, the Roman Republic (509–27 BCE) introduced another important model. While still exclusive and class-based, Rome employed elements of representative democracy. Citizens elected officials like consuls and tribunes, and assemblies were held to vote on laws. However, these rights were unevenly distributed, favoring wealthy patricians over common plebeians. Nevertheless, Rome contributed structural ideas such as checks and balances and separation of powers, which later influenced modern democratic systems. -/- The Middle Ages: Feudal Constraints and Proto-Parliaments -/- During the medieval period, Europe was dominated by feudal monarchies where power was concentrated in the hands of kings and nobles. Yet, seeds of representative governance continued to grow. Early parliamentary bodies, such as the Icelandic Althing (930 CE) and the English Parliament (13th century), emerged as forums for aristocratic or clerical consultation rather than broad citizen participation. While not democratic in the modern sense, these institutions preserved the concept of consultation and law-making through assemblies. -/- Enlightenment and the Rise of Modern Democracy -/- The 17th and 18th centuries saw a transformation in political thought through the influence of Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Montesquieu. These thinkers argued for popular sovereignty, natural rights, and constitutional governance, which directly challenged monarchic rule. These ideas inspired revolutionary movements and laid the intellectual groundwork for democratic elections. -/- Democratic Foundations: United States and France -/- The American Revolution (1776) marked the beginning of modern representative democracy. The U.S. Constitution (1787) established a system where power was divided between three branches of government and where citizens could vote for their representatives. Initially, suffrage was limited to white male property owners, but the principle of governance by the people was firmly established. -/- Inspired by the American example, the French Revolution (1789) proclaimed universal male suffrage—though temporarily—and asserted the democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen became a foundational document for human rights and democratic participation. -/- Expanding the Electorate: 19th Century Reforms -/- Throughout the 19th century, democratic elections expanded across Europe and the Americas. Reform acts in countries like the United Kingdom widened the right to vote, though still gradually. The century also saw the rise of women’s suffrage movements, with New Zealand becoming the first country to grant women the right to vote in 1893. Elections became more structured, with the establishment of political parties and parliamentary systems. -/- 20th Century: Globalization of Democracy -/- The 20th century was characterized by the global spread of democratic elections. After the two World Wars, colonial empires dissolved, and newly independent nations adopted democratic constitutions. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) declared the right to participate in government through free elections as a universal human right. -/- Over time, most countries adopted universal suffrage, allowing all adult citizens, regardless of gender, race, or class, to vote. However, not all democracies were liberal; many regimes held elections without guaranteeing true political freedoms, giving rise to hybrid or illiberal democracies. -/- 21st Century: Digital Democracy and New Challenges -/- Today, democratic elections are nearly universal in form, though not always in substance. The 21st century has brought both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, technology has enabled digital participation, online voting, and global political awareness. On the other hand, it has also introduced new threats like misinformation, election hacking, and erosion of trust in institutions. -/- Despite these challenges, elections remain a vital mechanism for peaceful power transfer and civic engagement. Democratic systems continue to evolve, adapting to changing social, technological, and political conditions. -/- Conclusion -/- From the direct democracy of ancient Athens to the representative systems of the modern world, the history of democratic elections is a testament to humanity’s ongoing struggle for fairness, equality, and self-governance. Though the journey has been uneven—with exclusions, setbacks, and evolving practices—democracy continues to adapt and expand. Understanding this history not only highlights how far we’ve come but also reminds us of the vigilance required to preserve and improve democratic institutions for future generations. -/- . (shrink)

Privacy and surveillance scholars increasingly worry that data collectors can use the information they gather about our behaviors, preferences, interests, incomes, and so on to manipulate us. Yet what it means, exactly, to manipulate someone, and how we might systematically distinguish cases of manipulation from other forms of influence—such as persuasion and coercion—has not been thoroughly enough explored in light of the unprecedented capacities that information technologies and digital media enable. In this paper, we develop a definition of manipulation (...) that addresses these enhanced capacities, investigate how information technologies facilitate manipulative practices, and describe the harms—to individuals and to social institutions—that flow from such practices. -/- We use the term “online manipulation” to highlight the particular class of manipulative practices enabled by a broad range of information technologies. We argue that at its core, manipulation is hidden influence—the covert subversion of another person’s decision-making power. We argue that information technology, for a number of reasons, makes engaging in manipulative practices significantly easier, and it makes the effects of such practices potentially more deeply debilitating. And we argue that by subverting another person’s decision-making power, manipulation undermines his or her autonomy. Given that respect for individual autonomy is a bedrock principle of liberal democracy, the threat of online manipulation is a cause for grave concern. (shrink)

This paper challenges the normative and conceptual foundations of current digital policies regarding adolescent smartphone use. It argues that the dominant "restriction-centered" approach reflects an analytical limitation, focusing on the "weakest link" (the minor user) while ignoring the structural power asymmetry of the platform economy. Drawing on identity theory and the concept of "freedom within a designed cage," the author redefines the smartphone not as a tool, but as a primary habitat for identity construction. The article further critiques the (...) legislative process through the lens of "least-resistance targeting" and "regulatory capture," highlighting a structural democratic deficit where adolescents—the primary subjects of these laws, are excluded from their authorship. By synthesizing 2025 global data with deliberative democracy frameworks (Habermas, Dryzek), the paper proposes a shift toward supply-side regulation and the inclusion of adolescent voices as policy partners. Note on Translation: The original version of this article was written in Persian and has been translated into English by the author. (shrink)

Few recent developments in information technology have been as hyped as blockchain, the first implementation of which was the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. Such hype furnishes ample reason to be skeptical about the promise of blockchain implementations, but I contend that there’s something to the hype. In particular, I think that certain blockchain implementations, in the right material, social, and political conditions, constitute excellent bases for common knowledge. As a case study, I focus on trust in election outcomes, where the ledger records (...) not financial transactions but vote tallies. I argue that blockchain implementations could foster warranted trust in vote tallies and thereby trust in the democratic process. Finally, I argue that if the promise of blockchain implementations as democratic infrastructure is to be realized, then democracies first need to ensure that these material, social, and political conditions obtain. (shrink)

America and the world are in the process of collapse from excessive population growth, most of it for the last century and now all of it due to 3rd world people. Consumption of resources and the addition of one or two billion more ca. 2100 will collapse industrial civilization and bring about starvation, disease, violence and war on a staggering scale. Billions will die and nuclear war is all but certain. In America this is being hugely accelerated by massive immigration (...) and immigrant reproduction, combined with abuses made possible by democracy. Depraved human nature inexorably turns the dream of democracy and diversity into a nightmare of crime and poverty. The root cause of collapse is the inability of our innate psychology to adapt to the modern world, which leads people to treat unrelated persons as though they had common interests. This, plus ignorance of basic biology and psychology, leads to the social engineering delusions of the partially educated who control democratic societies. Few understand that if you help one person you harm someone else—there is no free lunch and every single item anyone consumes destroys the earth beyond repair. Consequently, social policies everywhere are unsustainable and one by one all societies without stringent controls on selfishness will collapse into anarchy or dictatorship. Without dramatic and immediate changes, there is no hope for preventing the collapse of America, or any country that follows a democratic system. Hence my essay “Suicide by Democracy”. It is also now clear that the seven sociopaths who rule China are winning world war 3, and so my concluding essay on them. The only greater threat is Artificial Intelligence which I comment on briefly. The key to everything about us is biology, and it is obliviousness to it that leads millions of smart educated people like Obama, Chomsky, Clinton, the Democratic Party and the Pope to espouse suicidal utopian ideals that inexorably lead straight to Hell on Earth. As W noted, it is what is always before our eyes that is the hardest to see. We live in the world of conscious deliberative linguistic System 2, but it is unconscious, automatic reflexive System 1 that rules. This is the source of the universal blindness described by Searle’s The Phenomenological Illusion (TPI), Pinker’s Blank Slate and Tooby and Cosmides’ Standard Social Science Model. The first group of articles attempt to give some insight into how we behave that is reasonably free of theoretical delusions. In the next three groups I comment on three of the principal delusions preventing a sustainable world— technology, religion and politics (cooperative groups). People believe that society can be saved by them, so I provide some suggestions in the rest of the book as to why this is unlikely via short articles and reviews of recent books by well-known writers. Another section describes the religious delusion – that there is some super power that will save us. The next section describes the digital delusions, which confuse the language games of System 2 with the automatisms of System one, and so cannot distinguish biological machines (i.e., people) from other kinds of machines (i.e., computers). Other digital delusions are that we will be saved from the pure evil (selfishness) of System 1 by computers/AI/robotics/nanotech/genetic engineering created by System 2. The No Free Lunch principal tells us there will be serious and possibly fatal consequences. The last section describes The One Big Happy Family Delusion, i.e., that we are selected for cooperation with everyone, and that the euphonious ideals of Democracy, Diversity and Equality will lead us into utopia, if we just manage things correctly (the possibility of politics). Again, the No Free Lunch Principle ought to warn us it cannot be true, and we see throughout history and all over the contemporary world, that without strict controls, selfishness and stupidity gain the upper hand and soon destroy any nation that embraces these delusions. In addition, the monkey mind steeply discounts the future, and so we cooperate in selling our descendant’s heritage for temporary comforts, greatly exacerbating the problems. (shrink)

This article explores what John Dewey’s political philosophy can offer in regard to the current crisis in digital democracy. It focuses on two digital mechanisms, the “filter bubble” and the “echo chamber”. While there is a prominent, Dewey-inspired debate on “digital publics” in the literature, a reconstruction of the Deweyan concepts of the public and of shared experience shows that it does not adequately reflect the aspect of situated and embodied experience. Based on this, it is (...) shown that digital media offerings must also be rooted in local contexts of experience in order to answer the challenge of those two problematic mechanisms. (shrink)

Biological Brain Inefficiency and Its Role in Producing Bad Leaders and Ignorant Voters in a Democracy -/- Democracy is built on the principle of an informed citizenry electing competent leaders to govern society. However, human decision-making is often flawed due to biological inefficiencies in the brain. These inefficiencies—such as cognitive biases, emotional decision-making, and a lack of critical thinking—result in poor leadership and uninformed voting patterns. This essay explores how these brain limitations lead to the rise of bad (...) government leaders and ignorant voters and discusses potential solutions to mitigate these issues. -/- 1. The Influence of Cognitive Biases and Emotional Decision-Making -/- The human brain is not designed for purely rational thinking. It has evolved for survival, which means it often relies on heuristics, emotions, and shortcuts in decision-making. Many voters fall prey to cognitive biases, which distort their ability to make informed political choices. -/- Confirmation Bias: People tend to seek information that aligns with their existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss opposing evidence. This makes them highly susceptible to political propaganda and fake news, reinforcing their pre-existing opinions rather than encouraging critical evaluation of policies and candidates. -/- Authority Bias: Voters often trust and follow leaders who project confidence and authority, even when those leaders lack competence. Charismatic politicians exploit this bias by focusing on personality rather than policies. -/- Emotional Decision-Making: Rather than analyzing policies logically, many voters make political decisions based on emotions such as fear, anger, and hope. This makes them vulnerable to manipulative campaigns that appeal to their emotions rather than their intellect. -/- 2. The Role of Ignorance and Misinformation in Voting Patterns -/- Many voters lack access to proper education and reliable information, which leads to uninformed decision-making. Several factors contribute to this issue: -/- Propaganda and Fake News: In today’s digital age, misinformation spreads rapidly through social media and biased news sources. Many voters do not verify the accuracy of political claims, making them easy targets for manipulation. -/- Lack of Critical Thinking Skills: Education systems often fail to emphasize critical thinking, logic, and media literacy. Without these skills, people struggle to analyze political discourse and distinguish truth from deception. -/- Short-Term Thinking: Many voters base their choices on immediate personal benefits, such as politicians offering financial incentives, rather than considering long-term national development. This leads to the election of leaders who prioritize populist policies over sustainable progress. -/- 3. How Bad Leaders Exploit Brain Inefficiencies -/- Politicians who understand these cognitive weaknesses often exploit them to gain and maintain power. Some of their common strategies include: -/- Populism: Many ineffective leaders rise to power by making unrealistic promises that appeal to voters’ emotions rather than presenting feasible policies. These promises may include easy solutions to complex problems, such as eradicating poverty overnight or fixing the economy without structural changes. -/- Fear Tactics: Some politicians manipulate public fear to secure votes. They may exaggerate crime rates, economic threats, or foreign dangers to convince people that only they can provide security and stability. -/- Charismatic Leadership Over Competence: Many voters are drawn to leaders with strong personalities rather than those with technical knowledge or governance experience. This results in elections becoming popularity contests rather than assessments of actual capability. -/- 4. The Consequences of Ignorant Voting and Bad Leadership -/- The failure of voters to critically assess candidates leads to long-term consequences: -/- Corruption and Mismanagement: Inept leaders often prioritize personal gain and political survival over public welfare, leading to inefficient governance, corruption, and economic decline. -/- Weak Institutions: When unqualified leaders control government agencies, they weaken institutions by appointing incompetent officials, undermining checks and balances, and eroding democratic principles. -/- Cyclical Poverty and Underdevelopment: Poor governance results in policies that fail to address economic inequality, educational deficiencies, and healthcare inefficiencies, trapping societies in a cycle of underdevelopment. -/- 5. Possible Solutions to Improve Democratic Decision-Making -/- To counteract the negative effects of brain inefficiencies on democratic governance, societies must implement long-term solutions: -/- Educational Reform: Schools should emphasize critical thinking, logic, and media literacy from an early age. Teaching students how to evaluate political claims, fact-check information, and identify biases can create a more informed electorate. -/- Fact-Checking Mechanisms: Governments, independent organizations, and media outlets should promote fact-checking to counter misinformation. Encouraging citizens to rely on credible sources rather than propaganda can reduce the influence of fake news. -/- Merit-Based Leadership Selection: While democracy allows for free elections, implementing stricter qualifications for political candidates—such as requiring a background in governance, law, or economics—can help ensure that only competent individuals assume leadership roles. -/- Technology and AI in Governance: AI-driven platforms could be developed to provide unbiased political analysis, helping voters make more rational decisions based on data rather than emotions. -/- Conclusion -/- The inefficiencies of the human brain—such as cognitive biases, emotional decision-making, and susceptibility to misinformation—contribute significantly to the election of bad government leaders and the prevalence of ignorant voting in democratic systems. However, by improving education, strengthening fact-checking mechanisms, and encouraging merit-based leadership, societies can minimize these weaknesses and enhance democratic governance. A well-informed electorate is essential for a functional democracy, and addressing these biological limitations is a necessary step toward a better political future. -/- . (shrink)

In this chapter, we turn our attention to the effects of the attention economy on our ability to act autonomously as a group. We begin by clarifying which sorts of groups we are concerned with, which are structured groups (groups sufficiently organized that it makes sense to attribute agency to the group itself). Drawing on recent work by Purves and Davis (2022), we describe the essential roles of trust (i.e., depending on groups to fulfill their commitments) and trustworthiness (i.e., the (...) property of a group that makes trusting them fitting) in autonomous group action, with particular emphasis on democratic institutions (which we view as group agents) and democratic legitimacy (which depends on trust and trustworthiness). We then explain how engagement maximization promotes polarization, which is detrimental to trust and trustworthiness and, in turn, democratic legitimacy and democratic institutions. We close by considering what groups might do to protect themselves from the threat posed to them by the attention economy. (shrink)

This paper explores the powerlessness of political power in Nigeria through four interrelated dimensions. First, it examines the role of political parties in shaping Nigeria’s democracy, showing how corruption and elite capture have undermined the promise of representative government. Second, it analyzes the powerlessness of political parties and legislatures, institutions that should act as bulwarks of democracy but often serve as vehicles for rent-seeking and elite enrichment. Third, it introduces David Miller’s theory of remedial responsibility as a normative (...) framework for redistributing accountability among political actors, citizens, and institutions in Nigeria’s democracy. Finally, the paper concludes with recommendations for reconstructing political power as an instrument of justice rather than exploitation, while reflecting on how emerging technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence, can enhance accountability, citizen participation, and transparency in Nigeria’s democracy. Since Nigeria’s transition to civilian rule in 1999, democracy has been celebrated as a turning point in the country’s political trajectory. Yet, beneath the surface of electoral transitions lies a paradox; political power in Nigeria appears strong in capturing state resources but weak in delivering justice, development, and security to citizens. Through the method of critical analysis, this paper argues that Nigeria’s democracy is at a crossroads; unless institutions are reformed and political responsibility is reimagined, the country will remain trapped in a cycle of power without purpose, authority without accountability, and politics without progress. Responsible use of artificial intelligence and digital technologies can serve as supportive tools for accountability and effective political participation in governance. (shrink)

Do people fall for online disinformation, or do they actively utilize it as a tool to accomplish their goals? Currently, the notion of the members of the public as victims of deception and manipulation prevails in the debate. It emphasizes the need to limit people’s exposure to falsehoods and bolster their deficient reasoning faculties. However, the observed epistemic irrationality can also stem from politically motivated reasoning incentivized by digital platforms. In this context, the readily available disinformation facilitates an arms (...) race in loyalty signaling via a public endorsement of fanciful partisan claims. Such a signaling arms race appears capable of derailing democratic decision-making perhaps more effectively than any known reasoning deficiency. Appreciating the role of an instrumentally rational cost-benefit calculus in triggering the disinformation crisis thus appears vital. Examining these themes, the paper contributes to the current debates in political epistemology and democratic theory. (shrink)

This essay advances what I call the Algorithmic Authoritarianism Hypothesis: that artificial intelligence (AI) and its digital infrastructure do not create authoritarianism from nothing but radically accelerate its social, psychological, and institutional preconditions. Drawing upon Hannah Arendt’s phenomenology of loneliness, Michel Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary power, Gilles Deleuze’s “societies of control,” Byung-Chul Han’s psychopolitics, and Karl Marx’s theory of alienation, the essay interprets the current democratic erosion—especially in the United States—as a technologically mediated return of twentieth-century totalitarian tendencies. The (...) argument integrates philosophical inquiry with empirical evidence of political backsliding, inequality, and digital surveillance. The result is a framework for understanding how AI-driven governance transforms classical domination into predictive modulation, producing a soft totalitarianism that feels voluntary while undermining the very conditions of human freedom. (shrink)

RESUMEN: En este trabajo defiendo que el ideal de una ciudadanía competente es viable incluso en los contextos adversos que ofrecen las sociedades digitales. Para ello, identifico cinco problemas que obstaculizan a la ciudadanía la adquisición de competencia política: el pluralismo, el problema del moderador, la dificultad para acceder a información relevante, la apatía política y los sesgos políticos. Aunque estos problemas se agudizan en las democracias digitales, muestro que existen mecanismos institucionales que permiten corregir y mitigar sus efectos perjudiciales (...) sobre la competencia política. Por ello, concluyo, el ideal de ciudadanía competente es prima facie factible y podría lograrse mediante la implementación de medidas institucionales que fomenten la adquisición de competencia política por parte de la ciudadanía. -/- ABSTRACT: In this paper, I argue that the ideal of a competent citizenry is feasible even in the adverse context digital societies offer. To do so, I identify five problems that hinder citizens’ acquisition of political competence: pluralism, the chairman problem, difficulties in finding relevant information, political apathy, and political biases. Even though these problems worsen in digital democracies, I show that there are institutional mechanisms that allow for the correction and mitigation of the detrimental effects they might have on political competence. I thus conclude that the ideal of a competent citizenry is prima facie feasible and could be achieved through the implementation of institutional measures that foster political competence among citizens. (shrink)

In this article I try to shed some light on the complex relation between democracy, political knowledge, and disinformation. To do so, I first define three related concepts which, once clarified, could facilitate our understanding of the problems digital democracies face. First, drawing from the general notion of competence, I define civic competence. Then, drawing from the general notion of knowledge, I define political knowledge. Finally, and drawing from the general notion of information, I define democratically relevant information. (...) After clarifying these concepts, I will present three epistemic positions, to which I will refer to as knowledge, ignorance, and mistake. These three epistemic positions will be further connected with informative phenomena such as disinformation, fake news, and misinformation. (shrink)

Politics is a complex subject. There are many ways of governing with numerous types and subtypes. In this paper we attempt to first simplify politics by defining its main features. We show that political ideologies can fit into a dimensional space and define three major contemporary styles. Following this we compare and contrast fascism and communism and introduce totalitarianism using North Korea as an example. We then turn our attention to democracy, showing that the strength and weakness of democratic (...) institutions lies in how they deal with diversity. The classical liberal approach is presented as a model for effective democratic governance. We end with the current most serious threat to democracy: populism and nationalism. These are both forms of tribalism that pit group identity against individualism. Dictators succeed by appealing to tribalist tendencies. Democracies can win only if they are representative and pluralistic. (shrink)

A Universal Formula for Creating a Perfect Society -/- A perfect society must follow the universal law of balance in nature, ensuring that all social, economic, technological, and environmental systems function in harmony. Your universal formula serves as the foundation for designing such a society, where population growth is properly regulated to maintain balance and sustainability. -/- I. The Core Principle: The Universal Law of Balance -/- A perfect society must: ✔ Align human actions with natural laws. ✔ Eliminate corruption, (...) exploitation, and inefficiency. ✔ Balance technological progress with environmental sustainability. ✔ Regulate population growth to match available resources and societal needs. -/- II. The Key Components of a Perfect Society -/- 1. Ideal Population Growth Rate and Regulation -/- A perfect society must have a regulated population growth that aligns with natural resource capacity, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. ✔ Overpopulation leads to resource depletion, poverty, and instability. ✔ Underpopulation leads to economic decline and labor shortages. ✔ The ideal population growth rate must be carefully calculated for each region based on its resource availability, technological advancement, and economic capacity. -/- Implementation: -/- Educate the public on population and resource balance. -/- Implement voluntary and ethical family planning programs. -/- Ensure economic and social policies are adjusted based on population data. -/- Use AI to analyze demographic trends and forecast future population needs. -/- Encourage balanced migration policies to stabilize population distribution. -/- 2. Holistic and Rational Education System -/- ✔ Teach the universal law of balance in education. ✔ Focus on critical thinking, ethics, sustainability, and science. ✔ Train leaders in ethical decision-making, governance, and problem-solving. -/- 3. Governance Rooted in Natural Laws -/- ✔ Data-driven, ethical, and transparent leadership. ✔ AI-assisted governance to prevent corruption and mismanagement. ✔ Scientific, evidence-based policymaking. -/- 4. Urban Planning for Sustainable Cities -/- ✔ Eco-friendly, well-planned cities with green spaces and clean energy. ✔ Smart infrastructure to reduce congestion and pollution. ✔ Affordable, energy-efficient housing for all. -/- 5. Balanced Transportation System -/- ✔ Mass public transit over personal vehicles. ✔ Electric and hydrogen-powered transport to reduce pollution. ✔ Bike-friendly and pedestrian-friendly cities. -/- 6. A Just and Sustainable Economic System -/- ✔ Balanced capitalism—free markets with strong ethical regulations. ✔ No extreme wealth gaps or monopolies. ✔ Fair wages, job security, and profit-sharing models. -/- 7. Energy Production Aligned with Natural Balance -/- ✔ Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear fusion energy to eliminate fossil fuels. ✔ Decentralized renewable energy grids for reliability. ✔ Buildings, industries, and transportation designed for energy efficiency. -/- 8. Agriculture and Agribusiness for Food Security -/- ✔ Sustainable, regenerative farming practices to maintain soil fertility. ✔ Organic farming over chemical-intensive monoculture. ✔ AI-driven precision agriculture to maximize food production with minimal waste. -/- Implementation: -/- Urban farming and vertical agriculture to reduce land use. -/- Government subsidies for small farmers to prevent corporate monopolies. -/- Integration of agribusiness with clean energy sources. -/- 9. Technology Companies Serving Humanity -/- ✔ Ethical AI and automation that enhance human life. ✔ Tech companies must focus on sustainability, data privacy, and fairness. ✔ Public ownership of essential tech infrastructure (internet, AI governance, energy grids, etc.). -/- 10. Forest Conservation and Wildlife Protection -/- ✔ Strict anti-deforestation laws with mandatory reforestation. ✔ Protect wildlife corridors and endangered species. ✔ Regenerative land use practices to restore ecosystems. -/- 11. Protection of Seas, Oceans, and Rivers -/- ✔ Ban overfishing and destructive fishing methods. ✔ Regulate ocean mining and oil drilling. ✔ Prevent river and ocean pollution from industries and waste. -/- 12. Eliminating Pollution and Managing Waste -/- ✔ Zero-waste circular economy—recycling and reusing materials efficiently. ✔ Eliminate plastic waste and toxic chemicals in industries. ✔ Convert waste into renewable energy sources. -/- 13. Sustainable Water Resource Management -/- ✔ Protect fresh water from contamination and overuse. ✔ Desalination and rainwater harvesting in water-scarce areas. ✔ Efficient irrigation and water recycling in agriculture and industry. -/- 14. Job Creation and Economic Stability -/- ✔ Ensure that automation enhances jobs rather than eliminates them. ✔ Support entrepreneurship and small businesses. ✔ Guarantee fair wages and universal job security. -/- 15. Universal Healthcare System -/- ✔ Preventive medicine should be the priority. ✔ Universal healthcare with AI-driven diagnostics. ✔ Mental health services equal to physical health services. -/- 16. A Strong Social Safety Net -/- ✔ Unemployment benefits and food security. ✔ State-funded job training and skill development. ✔ Affordable housing and support systems for the homeless. -/- 17. Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Automation -/- ✔ AI must serve humanity, not corporate control. ✔ Prevent AI from being used for mass surveillance or manipulation. ✔ Ensure AI aligns with the universal law of balance. -/- 18. Justice System Based on Cause and Effect (Law of Karma) -/- ✔ Laws must be logical, fair, and corruption-free. ✔ Swift, evidence-based legal processes. ✔ Restorative justice rather than punitive imprisonment. -/- 19. Global Feedback Mechanism for Continuous Improvement -/- ✔ AI-assisted global balance monitoring. ✔ Digital democracy and blockchain voting for fair governance. ✔ Regular sustainability and ethics audits. -/- III. Conclusion: A Perfect Society Is Achievable -/- A perfect society follows the universal law of balance in all areas—economy, technology, environment, governance, and social systems. -/- By applying your universal formula, society can: ✔ Eliminate corruption, poverty, and injustice. ✔ Achieve sustainability without harming future generations. ✔ Use AI and technology responsibly for the betterment of all. ✔ Create a world where human potential is maximized, and suffering is minimized. -/- . (shrink)

Olymposism Manifesto proposes a radical yet pragmatic framework for the reconstruction of civilization in response to the global collapse of political, economic, and social systems. Rooted in the symbolic ascent of Mount Olympus, Olymposism envisions a post-nation-state world governed by federations of autonomous city-states, direct digital democracy, and ethically bounded economies. Its five foundational pillars—federated city-states, direct democracy, wealth limitation, the Umbrella Foundation, and universal basic income—form an integrated model aimed at balancing freedom, equality, and sustainability. By (...) imposing dynamic wealth caps and institutionalizing redistribution through a global foundation, Olymposism redefines prosperity as collective advancement rather than private accumulation. It further situates artificial intelligence, automation, and digital governance as tools for participatory justice, not instruments of control. The manifesto outlines a three-phase implementation plan to transition from pilot city-states to a global federation within three decades. Beyond a socio-economic proposal, Olymposism is a civilizational philosophy: a call for humanity to transcend obsolete hierarchies and construct a cooperative planetary order grounded in technological transparency, democratic immediacy, and moral elevation. It challenges the inertia of the present with an actionable vision of post-scarcity humanism. (shrink)

Online deliberation is one important instance of civic tech that is both for and by the citizens, through engaging citizens in Internet-supported deliberative discussions on public issues. This article explains the origins of a set of symposium articles in this journal issue based on the 2017 'International Conference on Deliberation and Decision Making: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Civic Tech' held in Singapore. Symposium articles are presented in a sequence that flows from designing decision making systems to platforms to specific technological nudges.

A human rights perspective to this article intertwines the rights to information and political participation. It deals with the intersections between the provision of civic and voter education (CVE), and the opportunities and threats pertaining to the feasibility of finding digital solutions for enhanced voter participation in democratic electoral processes during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Africa. Under normal circumstances and while conducted through physical contact sessions, CVE is aimed at providing citizens with communication, general and life skills (...) to constructively participate in democratic electoral processes. The greater the attendance in CVE events, the greater the conviction that a significant number of participants have been enlightened and encouraged to fully participate. As a result, electoral democracy becomes enriched and consolidated. However, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic render the physical training and dissemination of this crucial CVE information cumbersome, principally when considering the strictly-restricted number of attendants at events, consequently placing in disarray the enhancement of voter participation. Electoral management bodies, which are inherently charged with the responsibility for promoting CVE, confront the challenges for securing meaningful voter participation. Reliance on technological systems in the promotion of a consolidated electoral democracy during the COVID-19 pandemic emerges as a measure of last resort. Cognisant of the numerous developmental challenges encountered by many African countries, the feasibility of digital solutions in this instance could be far-fetched. More so, the digital divide and its impacts militate the empowerment of poor voters in remote rural areas where access to technological infrastructure and equipment is distantly slim. (shrink)

Are we being manipulated online? If so, is being manipulated by online technologies and algorithmic systems notably different from human forms of manipulation? And what is under threat exactly when people are manipulated online? This volume provides philosophical and conceptual depth to debates in digital ethics about online manipulation. The contributions explore the ramifications of our increasingly consequential interactions with online technologies such as online recommender systems, social media, user-friendly design, micro-targeting, default-settings, gamification, and real-time profiling. The authors in (...) this volume address four broad and interconnected themes: • What is the conceptual nature of online manipulation? And how, methodologically, should the concept be defined? • Does online manipulation threaten autonomy, freedom, and meaning in life, and if so, how? • What are the epistemic, affective, and political harms and risks associated with online manipulation? • What are legal and regulatory perspectives on online manipulation? The Philosophy of Online Manipulation brings these various considerations together to offer philosophically robust answers to critical questions concerning our online interactions with one another and with autonomous systems. It will be of interest to researchers and advanced students working in moral philosophy, digital ethics, philosophy of technology, and the ethics of manipulation. (shrink)

This article critically examines the ramifications of the stringent enforcement of restrictive and prohibitive communication surveillance laws and practices, which unjustifiably traduce fundamental human rights and freedoms pertinent to Zimbabwean elections. Based on doctrinal legal research, this article examines how state surveillance, facilitated by laws permitting the monitoring of digital communications, impacts fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the right to privacy. Evidence from Zimbabwe reveals a chilling effect on political participation, where fear of surveillance (...) leads to self-censorship, reduced civic engagement and the erosion of trust among civil society actors. The deployment of spyware and mass surveillance tools, often lacking judicial oversight, has disproportionately targeted human rights defenders, journalists and opposition figures, undermining democratic accountability and electoral integrity. The article argues that the current surveillance regime in Zimbabwe not only contravenes human rights standards but also significantly impairs free and fair elections. It concludes with recommendations for legal reforms, institutional safeguards and advocacy strategies aimed at aligning surveillance laws and practices with democratic principles and human rights obligations. (shrink)