Which Democratic Way to Go?

IF 0.5 Q4 ETHICS
Roxanne van der Puil, Andreas Spahn, Lambèr Royakkers
{"title":"Which Democratic Way to Go?","authors":"Roxanne van der Puil, Andreas Spahn, Lambèr Royakkers","doi":"10.4018/ijt.331800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are concerns amongst researchers and the general public that social media platforms threaten democratic values. Social media corporations and their engineers have responded to these concerns with various design solutions. Though the objective of designing social media democratically sounds straightforward, the concrete reality is not. The authors discuss what a democratic design for social media platforms could look like by exploring two classical conceptions of democracy, one in the liberal tradition and the other in the deliberative tradition. In particular, they discuss three concerns: 1) mis- and disinformation; 2) hate speech; and 3) the relations between filter bubbles, echo chambers, and public debate. By describing the underlying ideals of the two traditions and translating these into design guidelines, the authors make explicit how varied and contrary the implications of different conceptions of democracy can be for addressing public concerns and designing for democratic social media. With these things in mind, this article responds to a call, which is to raise awareness among social media corporations, engineers, and policymakers about varying democratic ideals and the implications that these may have for social media.","PeriodicalId":42986,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technoethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technoethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/ijt.331800","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are concerns amongst researchers and the general public that social media platforms threaten democratic values. Social media corporations and their engineers have responded to these concerns with various design solutions. Though the objective of designing social media democratically sounds straightforward, the concrete reality is not. The authors discuss what a democratic design for social media platforms could look like by exploring two classical conceptions of democracy, one in the liberal tradition and the other in the deliberative tradition. In particular, they discuss three concerns: 1) mis- and disinformation; 2) hate speech; and 3) the relations between filter bubbles, echo chambers, and public debate. By describing the underlying ideals of the two traditions and translating these into design guidelines, the authors make explicit how varied and contrary the implications of different conceptions of democracy can be for addressing public concerns and designing for democratic social media. With these things in mind, this article responds to a call, which is to raise awareness among social media corporations, engineers, and policymakers about varying democratic ideals and the implications that these may have for social media.
民主之路何去何从?
研究人员和公众都担心社交媒体平台会威胁到民主价值观。社交媒体公司和他们的工程师已经用各种设计解决方案回应了这些担忧。虽然民主设计社交媒体的目标听起来直截了当,但具体的现实并非如此。作者通过探索两个经典的民主概念,一个是自由传统的民主概念,另一个是协商传统的民主概念,讨论了社交媒体平台的民主设计可能是什么样子。他们特别讨论了三个问题:1)错误和虚假信息;2)仇恨言论;3)过滤气泡、回音室和公众辩论之间的关系。通过描述这两种传统的潜在理想,并将其转化为设计指南,作者明确了不同民主概念对解决公众关注和设计民主社交媒体的影响是多么不同和相反。考虑到这些,本文回应了一个呼吁,即提高社交媒体公司、工程师和政策制定者对各种民主理想的认识,以及这些理想可能对社交媒体产生的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信