The term digital citizen is used with different meanings. According to the definition provided by Karen Mossberger, one of the authors of Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation, digital citizens are "those who use the internet regularly and effectively". In this sense, a digital citizen is a person who uses information technology (IT) to engage in society, politics, and government. More recent elaborations of the concept define digital citizenship as the self-enactment of people’s role in society through the use of digital technologies, stressing the empowering and democratizing characteristics of the citizenship idea. These theories aim at taking into account the ever-increasing datafication of contemporary societies (symbolically linked to the Snowden leaks), which has called into question the meaning of “being (digital) citizens in a datafied society”. This condition is also referred to as the “algorithmic society”, characterised by the increasing datafication of social life and the pervasive presence of surveillance practices – see surveillance and surveillance capitalism, the use of artificial intelligence, and Big Data. Datafication presents crucial challenges for the very notion of citizenship, so that data collection can no longer be seen as an issue of privacy alone so that:We cannot simply assume that being a citizen online already means something (whether it is the ability to participate or the ability to stay safe) and then look for those whose conduct conforms to this meaning Instead, the idea of digital citizenship shall reflect the idea that we are no longer mere “users” of technologies since they shape our agency both as individuals and as citizens. Digital citizenship refers to the responsible and respectful use of technology to engage online, evaluate information, and protect human rights. It encompasses skills for communication, collaboration, empathy, privacy protection, and security to prevent data breaches and identity theft. == Digital citizenship in the "algorithmic society" == In the context of the algorithmic society, the question of digital citizenship "becomes one of the extents to which subjects are able to challenge, avoid or mediate their data double in this datafied society”. These reflections put the emphasis on the idea of the digital space (or cyberspace) as a political space where the respect of fundamental rights of the individual shall be granted (with reference both to the traditional ones as well as to new specific rights of the internet [see “digital constitutionalism”]) and where the agency and the identity of the individuals as citizens is at stake. This idea of digital citizenship is thought to be not only active but also performative, in the sense that “in societies that are increasingly mediated through digital technologies, digital acts become important means through which citizens create, enact and perform their role in society.” In particular, for Isin and Ruppert this points towards an active meaning of (digital) citizenship based on the idea that we constitute ourselves as digital citizen by claiming rights on the internet, either by saying or by doing something. == Types of digital participation == People who characterize themselves as digital citizens often use IT extensively—creating blogs, using social networks, and participating in online journalism. Although digital citizenship begins when any child, teen, or adult signs up for an email address, posts pictures online, uses e-commerce to buy merchandise online, and/or participates in any electronic function that is B2B or B2C, the process of becoming a digital citizen goes beyond simple internet activity. According to Thomas Humphrey Marshall, a British sociologist known for his work on social citizenship, a primary framework of citizenship comprises three different traditions: liberalism, republicanism, and ascriptive hierarchy. Within this framework, the digital citizen needs to exist in order to promote equal economic opportunities and increase political participation. In this way, digital technology helps to lower the barriers to entry for participation as a citizen within a society. They also have a comprehensive understanding of digital citizenship, which is the appropriate and responsible behavior when using technology. Since digital citizenship evaluates the quality of an individual's response to membership in a digital community, it often requires the participation of all community members, both visible and those who are less visible. A large part in being a responsible digital citizen encompasses digital literacy, etiquette, online safety, and an acknowledgement of private versus public information. The development of digital citizen participation can be divided into two main stages. The first stage is through information dissemination, which includes subcategories of its own: static information dissemination, characterized largely by citizens who use read-only websites where they take control of data from credible sources in order to formulate judgments or facts. Many of these websites where credible information may be found are provided by the government. dynamic information dissemination, which is more interactive and involves citizens as well as public servants. Both questions and answers can be communicated, and citizens have the opportunity to engage in question-and-answer dialogues through two-way communication platforms The second stage of digital citizen participation is citizen deliberation, which evaluates what type of participation and role that they play when attempting to ignite some sort of policy change. static citizen participants can play a role by engaging in online polls as well as through complaints and recommendations sent up, mainly toward the government who can create changes in policy decisions. dynamic citizen participants can deliberate amongst others on their thoughts and recommendations in town hall meetings or various media sites. One potential advantage of online participation through digital citizenship is increased social inclusion. In a report on civic engagement, citizen-powered democracy can be initiated either through information shared through the web, direct communication signals made by the state toward the public, and social media tactics from both private and public companies. In fact, it was found that the community-based nature of social media platforms allow individuals to feel more socially included and informed about political issues that peers have also been found to engage with, otherwise known as a "second-order effect." Understanding strategic marketing on social media would further explain social media customers’ participation. Two types of opportunities rise as a result, the first being the ability to lower barriers that can make exchanges much easier. In addition, they have the chance to participate in transformative disruption, giving people who have a historically lower political engagement to mobilize in a much easier and convenient fashion. Nonetheless, there are several challenges that face the presence of digital technologies in political participation. Both current as well as potential challenges can create significant risks for democratic processes. Not only is digital technology still seen as relatively ambiguous, it was also seen to have "less inclusivity in democratic life." Demographic groups differ considerably in the use of technology, and thus, one group could potentially be more represented than another as a result of digital participation. Another primary challenge consists in the ideology of a "filter bubble" effect. Alongside a tremendous spread of false information, internet users could reinforce existing prejudices and assist in polarizing disagreements in the public sphere. This can lead to misinformed voting and decisions based on exposure rather than on pure knowledge. A communication technology director, Van Dijk, stated, "Computerized information campaigns and mass public information systems have to be designed and supported in such a way that they help to narrow the gap between the 'information rich' and 'information poor' otherwise the spontaneous development of ICT will widen it." Access and equivalent amounts of knowledge behind digital technology must be equivalent in order for a fair system to put into place. Alongside a lack of evidenced support for technology that can be proven to be safe for citizens, the OECD has identified five struggles for the online engagement of citizens: Scale: To what extent can a society allow every individual's voice to be heard, but also not be lost in the mass debate? This can be extremely challenging for the government, which may not effectively know how to listen and respond to each individual contribution. Capacity: How can digital technology offer citizens more information on public policy-making? The opportunity for citizens to debate with one another is lacking for acti
Read more →