Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-qfg88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T00:24:09.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Public Policy

Digital Technology, Politics, and Policy-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2022

Fabrizio Gilardi
Fabrizio Gilardi
Affiliation:
University of Zurich

Summary

This element shows, based on a review of the literature, how digital technology has affected liberal democracies with a focus on three key aspects of democratic politics: political communication, political participation, and policy-making. The impact of digital technology permeates the entire political process, affecting the flow of information among citizen and political actors, the connection between the mass public and political elites, and the development of policy responses to societal problems. This element discusses how digital technology has shaped these different domains, identifies areas of research consensus as well as unresolved questions, and argues that a key perspective involves issue definition, that is, how the nature of the problems raised by digital technology is subject to political contestation.
Get access

Keywords

social mediafake newscivic teche-governmentartificial intelligencealgorithms
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Public Policy
Online ISBN: 9781108887304
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 23 June 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aitamurto, T. and Chen, K. (2017). The value of crowdsourcing in public policymaking: Epistemic, democratic and economic value. The Theory and Practice of Legislation 5 (1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aitamurto, T. and Landemore, H. E. (2015). Five design principles for crowdsourced policymaking: Assessing the case of crowdsourced off-road traffic law in Finland. Journal of Social Media for Organizations 2 (1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Alizadeh, M., Gilardi, F., Hoes, E, Klüser, K. J., Kubli, M, and Marchal, N. (2022). Content moderation as a political issue: The Twitter discourse around Trump’s ban. Working paper, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Allcott, H. and Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 (2), 211–236.Google Scholar
Allen, J., Howland, B., Mobius, M., Rothschild, D., and Watts, D. J. (2020). Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Science Advances 6 (14),eaay3539.Google Scholar
Alsina, V. and Martí, J. L. (2018). The birth of the crowdlaw movement: Tech-based citizen participation, legitimacy and the quality of lawmaking. Analyse & Kritik 40 (2), 337–358.Google Scholar
Altay, S., de Araujo, E., and Mercier, H. (2020). “If this account is true, it is most enormously wonderful”: Interestingness-if-true and the sharing of true and false news. Digital Journalism, .Google Scholar
Altay, S., Hacquin, A.-S., and H. Mercier (2020). Why do so few people share fake news? It hurts their reputation. New Media & Society (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. M., Hall, T. E., and Trechsel, A. H. (2009). Internet voting in comparative perspective: The case of Estonia. PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (3), 497–505.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. M., Levin, I., Mair, P., and Trechsel, A. (2014). Party preferences in the digital age: The impact of voting advice applications. Party Politics 20 (2), 227–236.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. M. and Nagler, J. (2001). The likely consequences of internet voting for political representation. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 34, 1115–1153.Google Scholar
Aral, S. (2020). The Hype Machine: How Social Media Disrupts Our Elections, Our Economy, and Our Health – and How We Must Adapt. New York: Currency.Google Scholar
Arnold, D., Dobbie, W., and Hull, P. (2021). Measuring racial discrimination in algorithms. AEA Papers and Proceedings 111, 49–54.Google Scholar
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review 56 (3), 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bail, C. A. (2016). Combining natural language processing and network analysis to examine how advocacy organizations stimulate conversation on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(42), 11823–11828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W. et al. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(37), 9216–9221.Google Scholar
Bail, C. A., Guay, B., Maloney, J. et al. (2020). Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 243–250.Google Scholar
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., and Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348 (6239), 1130–1132.Google Scholar
Bansak, K., Ferwerda, J., Hainmueller, J. et al. (2018). Improving refugee integration through data-driven algorithmic assignment. Science 359 (6373), 325–329.Google Scholar
Barari, S., Lucas, C., and Munger, K. (2021). Political Deepfake Videos Misinform the Public, But No More than Other Fake Media. https://osf.io/cdfh3/Google Scholar
Barberá, P. (2020). Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. In Persily, N. and Tucker, J. A. (eds.), Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, pp. 34–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barberá, P., Casas, A., Nagler, J. et al. (2019). Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review 113 (4), 883–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., and Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science 26 (10), 1531–1542.Google Scholar
Barrett, B., Dommett, K., and Kreiss, D. (2021). The capricious relationship between technology and democracy: Analyzing public policy discussions in the UK and US. Policy & Internet, 13(4),522–543.Google Scholar
Barros, S. A. R. and Sampaio, R. C. (2016). Do citizens trust electronic participatory budgeting? Public expression in online forums as an evaluation method in Belo Horizonte. Policy & Internet 8(3), 292–312.Google Scholar
Bauer, P. C. and von Hohenberg, B. C. (2020). Believing and sharing information by fake sources: An experiment. Political Communication, 38(6),647–671, http://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1840462.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, R. (2019). Assessing risk, automating racism. Science 366 (6464), 421–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benkler, Y. (2020). A political economy of the origins of asymmetric propaganda in American media. In Bennett, W. L. and S. Livingston (eds.), The Disinformation Age: Politics, Technology, and Disruptive Communication in the United States, pp. 43–66. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y., Faris, R., and Roberts, H. (2018). Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, C. J. and Accetti, C. I. (2018). “Techno-populism” as a new party family: The case of the Five Star Movement and Podemos. Contemporary Italian Politics 10 (2), 132–150.Google Scholar
Boulianne, S. and Theocharis, Y. (2020). Young people, digital media, and engagement: A meta-analysis of research. Social Science Computer Review 38 (2), 111–127.Google Scholar
Boushey, G. (2016). Targeted for diffusion? How the use and acceptance of stereotypes shape the diffusion of criminal justice policy innovations in the American states. American Political Science Review 110 (1), 198–214.Google Scholar
Branch, J. (2021). What’s in a name? Metaphors and cybersecurity. International Organization, 75(1),39–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashier, N. M., Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J., and Rand, D. G. (2021). Timing matters when correcting fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(5), e2020043118.Google Scholar
Brashier, N. M. and Schacter, D. L. (2020). Aging in an era of fake news. Current Directions in Psychological Science 29 (3), 316–323.Google Scholar
Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review 82 (5), 977–1008.Google Scholar
Bruns, A. (2019). After the “APIcalypse”: Social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research. Information, Communication & Society 22(1), 1544–1566.Google Scholar
Bua, A. and Bussu, S. (2021). Between governance-driven democratisation and democracy-driven governance: Explainingx changes in participatory governance in the case of Barcelona. European Journal of Political Research, 60(3),716–737.Google Scholar
Budd, B., Gabel, C., and Goodman, N. (2019). Online voting in a First Nation in Canada: Implications for participation and governance. In Krimmer, R., Volkamer, M., Cortier, V., Beckert, B., Küsters, R., Serdült, U., and Duenas-Cid, D. (eds.), Electronic Voting, pp. 50–66. New York: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buolamwini, J. and T. Gebru (2018, Feb 23–24). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Friedler, S. A. and C. Wilson (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, Volume 81 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 77–91. New York: Proceedings of Machine Learning Research.Google Scholar
Burrell, J. and Fourcade, M. (2021). The society of algorithms. Annual Review of Sociology 47, 213–237.Google Scholar
Burri, T. and von Bothmer, F. (2021). The New EU Legislation on Artificial Intelligence: A Primer. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3831424Google Scholar
Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review 81(5),825–836.Google Scholar
Campante, F., Durante, R., and Sobbrio, F. (2018). Politics 2.0: The multifaceted effect of broadband internet on political participation. Journal of the European Economic Association 16 (4), 1094–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardenal, A. S., Aguilar-Paredes, C., Galais, C., and Pérez-Montoro, M. (2019). Digital technologies and selective exposure: How choice and filter bubbles shape news media exposure. The International Journal of Press/Politics 24 (4), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, M. (2020). Fake news as an informational moral panic: The symbolic deviancy of social media during the 2016 US presidential election. Information, Communication & Society 23(3), 374–388.Google Scholar
Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christen, M., Mader, C., Čas, J., et al. (2020, February). Wenn Algorithmen für uns entscheiden: Chancen und Risiken der künstlichen Intelligenz. Zürich: Hochschulverlag AG.Google Scholar
Clayton, K., Blair, S., Busam, J. A., et al. (2020). Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behavior 42 (4), 1073–1095.Google Scholar
Coppock, A., Hill, S. J., and Vavreck, L. (2020). The small effects of political advertising are small regardless of context, message, sender, or receiver: Evidence from 59 real-time randomized experiments. Science Advances 6 (36),eabc4046.Google Scholar
Culnane, C., Essex, A., Lewis, S. J., Pereira, O., and Teague, V. (2019). Knights and knaves run elections: Internet voting and undetectable electoral fraud. IEEE Security Privacy 17 (4), 62–70.Google Scholar
Danaher, J., Hogan, M. J., Noone, C., et al. (2017). Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence. Big Data & Society 4(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
Deseriis, M. (2020). Digital movement parties: A comparative analysis of the technopolitical cultures and the participation platforms of the Movimento 5 Stelle and the Piratenpartei. Information, Communication & Society 23(12), 1770–1786.Google Scholar
Dinas, E., Trechsel, A. H., and Vassil, K. (2014). A look into the mirror: Preferences, representation and electoral participation. Electoral Studies 36(C), 290–297.Google Scholar
Dommett, K. (2019). The rise of online political advertising. Political Insight 10 (4), 12–15.Google Scholar
Douek, E. (2020). The rise of content cartels. New York: Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.Google Scholar
Douek, E. (2021a). Governing online speech: From ‘posts-as-trumps’ to proportionality and probability. Columbia Law Review 121 (3), 759–833.Google Scholar
Douek, E. (2021b). The limits of international law in content moderation. UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law 6(1).Google Scholar
Dragu, T. and Lupu, Y. (2021). Digital authoritarianism and the future of human rights. International Organization 57.Google Scholar
Dressel, J. and Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science advances 4 (1),eaao5580.Google Scholar
Dubois, E. and Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society 21 (5), 729–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eady, G., Nagler, J., Guess, A., Zilinsky, J., and Tucker, J. A. (2019). How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data. SAGE Open 9 (1), 215824401983270–21.Google Scholar
Eckles, D., Gordon, B. R., and Johnson, G. A. (2018). Field studies of psychologically targeted ads face threats to internal validity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 54, E5254–E5255.Google Scholar
Egelhofer, J. L. and Lecheler, S. (2019). Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: A framework and research agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association 43(2), 97–116.Google Scholar
Elder, C. D. and Cobb, R. W. (1984). Agenda-building and the politics of aging. Policy Studies Journal 13 (1), 115–129.Google Scholar
Esser, F. and Pfetsch, B. (2020). Political communication. In Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative Politics (5th ed.), pp. 336–358. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Essex, A. and Goodman, N. (2020). Protecting Electoral Integrity in the Digital Age: Developing E-Voting Regulations in Canada. Election Law Journal 19 (2), 162–179.Google Scholar
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. London: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
European Commission (2018). A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation: Report of the independent high level group on fake news and online disinformation. Brussels, Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/0156.Google Scholar
European Commission (2021). Fostering a European approach to Artificial Intelligence. COM(2021) 205 final.Google Scholar
European Data Protection Supervisor (2020, January). A preliminary opinion on data protection and scientific research. Brussels: European Data Protection Supervisor, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Farrell, H. (2012). The consequences of the Internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15, 35–52.Google Scholar
Feezell, J. T. (2018). Agenda setting through social media: The importance of incidental news exposure and social filtering in the digital era. Political Research Quarterly 71 (2), 482–494.Google Scholar
Fivaz, J. and Nadig, G. (2010). Impact of voting advice applications (VAAs) on voter turnout and their potential use for civic education. Policy & Internet 2(4), 167–200.Google Scholar
Flaxman, S., , S. Goel, and Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1), 298–320.Google Scholar
Fletcher, R. and Kleis Nielsen, R. (2018).Automated serendipity: The effect of using search engines on news repertoire balance and diversity. Digital Journalism 6 (8), 976–989.Google Scholar
Fowler, E. F., Franz, M. M., Martin, G. J., Peskowitz, Z., and Ridout, T. N. (2021). Political advertising online and offline. American Political Science Review 115 (1), 130–149.Google Scholar
Fowler, E. F., Franz, M. M., and Ridout, T. N. (2020). Online political advertising in the united states. In Persily, N. and Tucker, J. A. (eds.), Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, pp. 111–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freelon, D. (2018). Computational research in the post-API age. Political Communication 35 (4), 665–668.Google Scholar
Freelon, D., Marwick, A., and Kreiss, D. (2020). False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right. Science 369 (6508), 1197–1201.Google Scholar
Freeze, M., , M. Baumgartner, Bruno, P., et al. (2020). Fake claims of fake news: Political misinformation, warnings, and the tainted truth effect. Political Behavior.Google Scholar
Fung, A., Russon Gilman, H., and Shkabatur, J. (2013). Six models for the internet + politics. International Studies Review 15 (1), 30–47.Google Scholar
Gallacher, J. D., Heerdink, M. W., and Hewstone, M. (2021). Online engagement between opposing political protest groups via social media is linked to physical violence of offline encounters. Social Media+ Society 7 (1), http://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984445.Google Scholar
Garzia, D., Trechsel, A. H., and De Angelis, A. (2017). Voting advice applications and electoral participation: A multi-method study. Political Communication 34 (3), 424–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzia, D., Trechsel, A. H., Vassil, K., and Dinas, E. (2014). Indirect campaigning: Past, present and future of voting advice applications. In Grofman, B., Trechsel, A. H., and Franklin, M. (eds.), The Internet and Democracy in Global Perspective, pp. 25–41. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gemenis, K. and Rosema, M. (2014). Voting advice applications and electoral turnout. Electoral Studies 36(C), 281–289.Google Scholar
Gerl, K., Marschall, S., and Wilker, N. (2018). Does the Internet encourage political participation? Use of an online platform by members of a German political party. Policy & Internet 10(1), 87–118.Google Scholar
Germann, M. (2021). Internet voting increases expatriate voter turnout. Government Information Quarterly 38.Google Scholar
Germann, M. and Gemenis, K. (2019). Getting out the vote with voting advice applications. Political Communication 36 (1), 149–170.Google Scholar
Germann, M. and Serdült, U. (2017). Internet voting and turnout: Evidence from Switzerland. Electoral Studies 47, 1–12.Google Scholar
Gilardi, F., Baumgartner, L., Dermont, C., et al. (2022a). Building research infrastructures to study digital technology and politics: Lessons from Switzerland. PS: Political Science & Politics, 55(2): 354–359.Google Scholar
Gilardi, F., Gessler, T., Kubli, M., and Müller, S. (2022b). Social media and political agenda setting. Political Communication, 39(1),39–60.Google Scholar
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Presss.Google Scholar
Gilman, H. R. (2017). Civic tech for urban collaborative governance. PS: Political Science and Politics 50 (3), 744–750.Google Scholar
Gohdes, A. R. (2020). Repression technology: Internet accessibility and state violence. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3),488–503.Google Scholar
Goodman, N., McGregor, M., Couture, J., and Breux, S. (2018). Another digital divide? Evidence that elimination of paper voting could lead to digital disenfranchisement. Policy & Internet 10(2), 164–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. and Stokes, L. C. (2020). Reducing the cost of voting: An evaluation of internet voting’s effect on turnout. British Journal of Political Science 50 (3), 1155–1167.Google Scholar
Gorwa, R. (2019). The platform governance triangle: Conceptualising the informal regulation of online content. Internet Policy Review 8 (2), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorwa, R., Binns, R., and Katzenbach, C. (2020). Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society 7(1).Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. and Walgrave, S. (2014). Political agenda setting: An approach to studying political systems. In Green-Pedersen, C. and Walgrave, S. (eds.), Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative Approach, pp. 1–16. Chicago, IL:: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., and Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science 363 (6425), 374–378.Google Scholar
Guess, A., Nagler, J., and , J. Tucker (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances 5 (1),eaau4586.Google Scholar
Guess, A. M. (2021). (Almost) everything in moderation: New evidence on Americans’ online media diets. American Journal of Political Science, 65(4),1007–1022.Google Scholar
Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., et al. (2020). A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences 117(27), 15536–15545.Google Scholar
Guess, A. M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., and Reifler, J. (2019). Fake news, Facebook ads, and misperceptions: Assessing information quality in the 2018 US midterm election campaign. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/5/2293/files/2021/03/fake-news-2018.pdf.Google Scholar
Guess, A. M. and Lyons, B. A. (2020). Misinformation, disinformation, and online propaganda. In Persily, N. and Tucker, J. A. (eds.), Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, pp. 10–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., and Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour 4 (5), 472–480.Google Scholar
Hager, A. (2019). Do online ads influence vote choice? Political Communication 36 (3), 376–393.Google Scholar
Hartmann, K. and Wenzelburger, G. (2021). Uncertainty, risk and the use of algorithms in policy decisions: A case study on criminal justice in the USA. Policy Sciences 54 (2), 269–287.Google Scholar
Hong, L. and Page, S. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(46), 16385–16389.Google Scholar
Hosseinmardi, H., Ghasemian, A., Clauset, A., et al. (2020). Evaluating the scale, growth, and origins of right-wing echo chambers on YouTube. arxiv:2011.12843.Google Scholar
Ingrams, A. (2019). Public values in the age of big data: A public information perspective. Policy & Internet 11(2), 128–148.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., and Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22 (1), 129–146.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. J., Bailey, M., and Foucault Welles, B. (2018). #GirlsLikeUs: Trans advocacy and community building online. New Media & Society 20(5), 1868–1888.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. J., Bailey, M., and Welles, B. F. (2020). # HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. J. and Foucault Welles, B. (2015). Hijacking #myNYPD: Social media dissent and networked counterpublics. Journal of Communication 65 (6), 932–952.Google Scholar
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., and Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence (1), 389–399.Google Scholar
Jungherr, A. (2014). The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication 64 (2), 239–259.Google Scholar
Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 13(1), 72–91.Google Scholar
Jungherr, A., Posegga, O., and An, J. (2019). Discursive power in contemporary media systems: A comparative framework. The International Journal of Press/Politics 59(9), 24(4),404–425.Google Scholar
Jungherr, A., Rivero, G., and Gayo-Avello, D. (2020). Retooling Politics: How Digital Media are Shaping Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jungherr, A. and Schroeder, R. (2021). Disinformation and the structural transformations of the public arena: Addressing the actual challenges to democracy. Social Media+ Society 7 (1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305121988928.Google Scholar
Kalla, J. L. and Broockman, D. E. (2018). The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: Evidence from 49 field experiments. American Political Science Review 112 (1), 148–166.Google Scholar
Karpf, D. (2012). Social science research methods in internet time. Information, Communication & Society 15(5), 639–661.Google Scholar
Karpf, D. (2020). How digital disinformation turned dangerous. In Bennett, W. L. and Livingston, S. (eds.), The Disinformation Age: Politics, Technology, and Disruptive Communication in the United States, pp. 153–168. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, D. (2018). Internet platforms: Observations on speech, danger, and money. Hoover Working Group on National Security, Technology, and Law, Aegis Series Paper No. 1807.Google Scholar
King, G., Pan, J., and Roberts, M. E. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review 107 (2), 326–343.Google Scholar
King, G. and Persily, N. (2020). A new model for industry–academic partnerships. PS: Political Science & Politics 53 (4), 703–709.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. and Rehm, P. (2020). Political participation. In Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative Politics (5th ed.), pp. 318–335. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kleinberg, J., , J. Ludwig, Mullainathan, S., and Sunstein, C. R. (2020). Algorithms as discrimination detectors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(48), 30096–30100.Google Scholar
Klonick, K. (2020). The Facebook oversight board: Creating an independent institution to adjudicate online free expression. Yale Law Journal 129 (8), 2418–2499.Google Scholar
Knill, C. and Tosun, J. (2020). Policy-making. In Caramani, D. (ed.), Comparative Politics (5th ed.), pp. 361–375. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krafft, T. D., Zweig, K. A., and König, P. D. (2022). How to regulate algorithmic decision-making: A framework of regulatory requirements for different applications. Regulation and Governance, 16, 119–136.Google Scholar
Kreiss, D. (2021). Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform, ed. Nathaniel Persily and Joshua A. Tucker. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 1–8.Google Scholar
Ladner, A. and Pianzola, J. (2010). Do voting advice applications have an effect on electoral participation and voter turnout? Evidence from the 2007 Swiss federal elections. In International Conference on Electronic Participation, pp. 211–224. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Langer, A. I. and Gruber, J. B. (2021, June). Political agenda setting in the hybrid media system: Why legacy media still matter a great deal. The International Journal of Press/Politics 8, 26(2): 313–340.Google Scholar
Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., et al. (2018). The science of fake news. Science 359 (6380), 1094–1096.Google Scholar
Lazer, D. M. J., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., et al. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science 369 (6507), 1060–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehdonvirta, V. and Bright, J. (2015). Crowdsourcing for public policy and government. Policy & Internet 7 (3), 263–267.Google Scholar
Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., and Iyengar, S. (2017). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science 61 (1), 5–20.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2021). Social media, news consumption, and polarization: Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Review, 111(3),831–870.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Jetter, M., and Ecker, U. K. (2020). Using the president’s tweets to understand political diversion in the age of social media. Nature Communications 11 (1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindgren, S. (2019). Movement mobilization in the age of hashtag activism: examining the challenge of noise, hate, and disengagement in the #MeToo campaign. Policy & Internet 11(4), 1–21.Google Scholar
Liu, H. K. (2017). Crowdsourcing government: Lessons from multiple disciplines. Public Administration Review 77 (5), 656–667.Google Scholar
Liu, H. K. (2021). Crowdsourcing: Citizens as coproducers of public services. Policy & Internet, 13(2), 315–331.Google Scholar
Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., and Larson, H. J. (2021). Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour 5 (3), 337–348.Google Scholar
Margetts, H. and Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 371(1987).Google ScholarPubMed
Margetts, H., John, P., Hale, S., and Yasseri, T. (2016). Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Marschall, S. and Garzia, D. (2014). Voting advice applications in a comparative perspective: An introduction. In Garzia, D. and Marschall, S. (eds.), Matching Voters with Parties and Candidates. Voting Advice Applications in Comparative Perspective, pp. 1–10. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., and Stillwell, D. J. (2017). Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences 114(48), 12714–12719.Google Scholar
McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2), 176–187.Google Scholar
McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication 43(2), 58–67.Google Scholar
McGregor, S. C. (2019). Social media as public opinion: How journalists use social media to represent public opinion. Journalism 20(8), 1070–1086.Google Scholar
McGregor, S. C. and Molyneux, L. (2020). Twitter’s influence on news judgment: An experiment among journalists. Journalism 21 (5), 597–613.Google Scholar
McKay, S. and Tenove, C. (2020). Disinformation as a threat to deliberative democracy. Political Research Quarterly 6(1).Google Scholar
Messing, S. and Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media. Communication Research 41 (8), 1042–1063.Google Scholar
Miller, G. J. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Review of Political Science 8, 203–225.Google Scholar
Molyneux, L. and McGregor, S. C. (2021). Legitimating a platform: Evidence of journalists’ role in transferring authority to Twitter. Information, Communication & Society.Google Scholar
Mosca, L. (2018). Democratic vision and online participatory spaces in the Italian Movimento 5 Stelle. Acta Politica 55 (1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Munger, K. (2019). Knowledge decays: Temporal validity and social science in a changing world. https://osf.io/ca5wz/.Google Scholar
Munger, K., Guess, A. M., and Hargittai, E. (2021). Quantitative description of digital media. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media 1(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Munzert, S., Barberá, P., Guess, A. M., and Yang, J. H. (2021, January). Do online voter guides empower citizens? Public Opinion Quarterly 20 (3), 227–24.Google Scholar
Munzert, S. and Ramirez-Ruiz, S. (2021, January). Meta-analysis of the effects of voting advice applications. Political Communication 00 (00), 1–16.Google Scholar
Natale, S. and Ballatore, A. (2014). The web will kill them all: New media, digital utopia, and political struggle in the Italian 5-Star Movement. Media, Culture and Society 36 (1), 105–121.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B. (2020). Facts and myths about misperceptions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 34 (3), 220–236.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., and Wood, T. J. (2020). Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior 42 (3), 939–960.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior 32 (2), 303–330.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2015). The effect of fact-checking on elites: A field experiment on U.S. State legislators. American Journal of Political Science 59 (3), 628–640.Google Scholar
OECD (2005). e-government for better government. Technical report, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Ostfeld, M. (2017). Unity versus uniformity: Effects of targeted advertising on perceptions of group politics. Political Communication 34 (4), 530–547.Google Scholar
Pan, J. and Siegel, A. A. (2020). How Saudi crackdowns fail to silence online dissent. American Political Science Review 114 (1), 109–125.Google Scholar
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Park, S., Specter, M., Narula, N., and Rivest, R. L. (2021). Going from bad to worse: From internet voting to blockchain voting. Journal of Cybersecurity, 7 (1),tyaa025.Google Scholar
Pennycook, G. and Rand, D. G. (2019a). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 6, 116(7),2521–2526.Google Scholar
Pennycook, G. and Rand, D. G. (2019b). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50.Google Scholar
Persily, N. (2017). Can democracy survive the Internet? Journal of Democracy 28 (2), 63–76.Google Scholar
Persily, N. (2021). Opening a window into tech: The challenge and opportunity for data transparency. Report, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Persily, N. and Tucker, J. A. (2020a). Conclusion: The challenges and opportunities for social media research. In Persily, N. and Tucker, J. A. (eds.), Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, pp. 313–331. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Persily, N. and Tucker, J. A. (eds.). (2020b). Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petitpas, A., Jaquet, J. M., and Sciarini, P. (2021). Does e-voting matter for turnout, and to whom? Electoral Studies 71, 102245.Google Scholar
Pianzola, J., Trechsel, A. H., Vassil, K., Schwerdt, G., and Alvarez, R. M. (2019). The impact of personalized information on vote intention: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Politics 81 (3), 833–847.Google Scholar
Prpić, J., Taeihagh, A., and Melton, J. (2015). The fundamentals of policy crowdsourcing. Policy & Internet 7 (3), 340–361.Google Scholar
Rieder, B. and Hofmann, J. (2020). Towards platform observability. Internet Policy Review 9(4).Google Scholar
Roberts, M. E. (2018). Censored: Distraction and Diversion inside China’s Great Firewall. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. T. (2019, July). Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence 1 (5), 206–215.Google Scholar
Sances, M. W. (2019). Missing the target? Using surveys to validate social media ad targeting. Political Science Research and Methods 9 (1), 215–222.Google Scholar
Scharkow, M., Mangold, F., Stier, S., and Breuer, J. (2020). How social network sites and other online intermediaries increase exposure to news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117 (6), 2761–2763.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schaub, M. and Morisi, D. (2020). Voter mobilisation in the echo chamber: Broadband internet and the rise of populism in Europe. European Journal of Political Research 59 (4), 752–773.Google Scholar
Schultze, M. (2014). Effects of voting advice applications (VAAs) on political knowledge about party positions. Policy & Internet 6(1), 46–68.Google Scholar
Sears, D. O. and Freedman, J. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly 31 (2), 194–213.Google Scholar
Settle, J. E. (2018). Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shi, F., Teplitskiy, M., Duede, E., and Evans, J. A. (2019). The wisdom of polarized crowds. Nature Human Behaviour 3, 329–336.Google Scholar
Smith, A. and Martín, P. P. (2020). Going beyond the smart city? Implementing technopolitical platforms for urban democracy in Madrid and Barcelona. Journal of Urban Technology, 28(1–2), 311–330.Google Scholar
Solvak, M. and Vassil, K. (2018). Could internet voting halt declining electoral turnout? New evidence that e-voting is habit forming. Policy & Internet 10(1), 4–21.Google Scholar
Stockman, C. and Scalia, V. (2020). Democracy on the Five Star Movement’s Rousseau platform. European Politics and Society 21 (5), 603–617.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Taeihagh, A. (2017). Crowdsourcing: A new tool for policy-making? Policy Sciences 50(4), 629–647.Google Scholar
Taeihagh, A., Ramesh, M., and Howlett, M. (2021). Assessing the regulatory challenges of emerging disruptive technologies. Regulation and Governance, 15(4),1009–1019.Google Scholar
Ternovski, J., , J. Kalla, and Aronow, P. M. (2021). Deepfake warnings for political videos increase disbelief but do not improve discernment: Evidence from two experiments. https://osf.io/dta97/Google Scholar
Theocharis, Y. (2015). The conceptualization of digitally networked participation. Social Media + Society, (July-December), 1–14.Google Scholar
Theocharis, Y., Moor, J., and Deth, J. W. (2021). Digitally networked participation and lifestyle politics as new modes of political participation. Policy & Internet 13 (1), 30–53.Google Scholar
Theocharis, Y. and van Deth, J. W. (2018). The continuous expansion of citizen participation: a new taxonomy. European Political Science Review 10 (1), 139–163.Google Scholar
Tucker, J. A., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., and Barberá, P. (2017). From liberation to turmoil: Social media and democracy. Journal of Democracy 28(4), 46–59.Google Scholar
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven, CT Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Vaccari, C. and Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media+ Society 6 (1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Van Deth, J. W. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica 49 (3), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Duyn, E. and Collier, J. (2019). Priming and fake news: The effects of elite discourse on evaluations of news media. Mass Communication and Society 22 (1), 29–48.Google Scholar
Vassil, K., Solvak, M., Vinkel, P., Trechsel, A. H., and Alvarez, R. M. (2016). The diffusion of internet voting: Usage patterns of internet voting in Estonia between 2005 and 2015. Government Information Quarterly 33 (3), 453–459.Google Scholar
Vassil, K. and Weber, T. (2011). A bottleneck model of e-voting: Why technology fails to boost turnout. New Media & Society 13(8), 1336–1354.Google Scholar
Verhulst, S. G., Zahranec, A. J., and Young, A. (2019). Identifying citizens’ needs by combining AI and CI. Report, The Governance Lab, New York University.Google Scholar
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., and Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science 359 (6380), 1146–1151.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S., , S. Soroka, and Nuytemans, M. (2008). The mass media’s political agenda-setting power: A longitudinal analysis of media, parliament, and government in Belgium (1993 to 2000). Comparative Political Studies 41 (6), 814–836.Google Scholar
Wardle, C. and Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J., Rothschild, D. M., and Mobius, M. (2021). Measuring the news and its impact on democracy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(15), e1912443118.Google Scholar
Weeks, B. E. and Gil de Zú niga, H. (2021). What’s next? Six observations for the future of political misinformation research. American Behavioral Scientist 65 (2), 277–289.Google Scholar
Weidmann, N. B. and Rød, E. G. (2019). The Internet and Political Protest in Autocracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, B. A., Brooks, C. F., and Shmargad, Y. (2018). How algorithms discriminate based on data they lack: Challenges, solutions, and policy implications. Journal of Information Policy 8, 78–115.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, C. and Berinski, A. J. (2020). Misinformation and its correction. In Persily, N. and Tucker, J. A. (eds.), Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, pp. 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, C., Zong, J., Rand, D., et al. (2021). The (minimal) persuasive advantage of political video over text. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(47). e2114388118.Google Scholar
Wolfe, M., Jones, B. D., and Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). A failure to communicate: Agenda setting in media and policy studies. Political Communication 30 (2), 175–192.Google Scholar
Wood, T. and Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior 41 (1), 135–163.Google Scholar
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., and Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330 (6004), 686–688.Google Scholar
Woolley, S. C. and Howard, P. N. (2018). Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, T., Majó-Vázquez, S., Nielsen, R. K., and González-Bailón, S. (2020). Exposure to news grows less fragmented with an increase in mobile access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(46), 28678–28683.Google Scholar
Zarsky, T. (2016). The trouble with algorithmic decisions: An analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41(1), 118–132.Google Scholar
Zeitzoff, T. (2017). How social media is changing conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 61 (9), 1970–1991.Google Scholar
Zerilli, J., Knott, A., Maclaurin, J., and Gavaghan, C. (2019). Transparency in algorithmic and human decision-making: Is there a double standard? Philosophy & Technology 32 (4), 661–683.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Digital Technology, Politics, and Policy-Making
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Digital Technology, Politics, and Policy-Making
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Digital Technology, Politics, and Policy-Making
Available formats
×