Digital Democracy and Religious Beliefs: Charting the Course of Cyber Politics in the 21st Century
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Digital platforms allow religious groups to mobilize more successfully and exert more significant political influence. This is how digital democracy and religious beliefs are related. But these platforms also act as arenas for ideological clashes, so to avoid polarization, policies must be carefully considered and strike a balance between respecting religious diversity and encouraging responsible digital engagement. This paper explores the intricate interplay between emerging digital democratic platforms and the deeply rooted religious beliefs that shape political landscapes. This study shows how the spread of digital tools and online platforms has given religious organizations more clout in political processes and opened up new arenas for ideological confrontations. Examining the mutually beneficial relationship between digital technology and religious activism, the work emphasizes the need for nuanced policies that balance respect for various belief systems and technological advancement in the digital age. This highlights the potential for both constructive civic engagement and polarizing divisiveness. In conclusion, this study demonstrates how digital tools can empower religious organizations in political settings and provoke ideological conflict. To encourage positive civic engagement and lessen polarization, it emphasizes the need for policies that balance technological advancement and respect for differing viewpoints.
Article Details
References
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-236. doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Alvarez, R. M., Hall, T. E., & Trechsel, A. H. (2009). Internet voting in comparative perspective: The case of Estonia. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(3), 497-505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096509090599
Beckford, J. A. (2012). Public religions and the postsecular: Critical reflections. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51(1), 1-19.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2012). Collective action in organizations: Interaction and engagement in an era of technological change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018, March 17). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in a major data breach. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election
Campbell, H. A. (2013). Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in new media worlds. Routledge.
Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture (Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Cavoukian, A., Castro, D., & Harbour, J. (2010). Privacy by design: The 7 foundational principles. Identity in the Information Society, 3(2), 267-274. doi:10.1007/s12394-010-0042-4
Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Internet politics (pp. 230-245). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cheong, P. H. (2017). Religious authority and social media branding in digital media. Online—Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet, 11, 57-78.
Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice, and policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615-633. doi:10.1080/13691180110097030
Davies, T., Perini, F., & Alonso, J. P. (2016). The role of intermediaries in the emerging global open data infrastructure. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 333-338. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.004
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355-400). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hindman, M. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of religion: A theory of the media as agents of religious change. Northern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook, 6(1), 9-26.
Howard, P. N. (2011). The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam. Oxford University Press.
Howard, P. N., & Kollanyi, B. (2016). Bots, #StrongerIn, and #Brexit: Computational propaganda during the UK-EU referendum. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2798311
Howard, P. N., & Parks, M. R. (2012). Social media and political change: Capacity, constraint, and consequence. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 359-362. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.x
Kreiss, D. (2016). Prototype politics: Technology-intensive campaigning and the data of democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lyon, D. (2014). Surveillance, Snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 2053951714541861. doi:10.1177/2053951714541861
Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2018). Smart city governance: A local system of multi-level interactions. In K. C. Desouza & Y. J. Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi:10.24251/HICSS.2018.234
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2018). The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Stories Increases Perceived Accuracy of Stories Without Warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944-4957. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478
Pew Research Center. (2019). The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050. Retrieved from Pew Research Center.
Stewart, P., Aste, T., Mattei, N., & Diakonova, M. (2018). Blockchain for improved election integrity. Information, 9(7), 164. doi:10.3390/info9070164
Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.
Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751-752. doi:10.1126/science.aat5991
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., & Sanovich, S. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Media and Communication, 6(2), 7-36. doi:10.17645/mac.v6i2.1436
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Vassil, K. (2016). Digital Estonia: How a small nation's e-government innovations are driving economic success. New York, NY: Springer.
Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe Report. https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html