For instance, if more men participate, outcomes will favor male preferences, and if more young people participate, outcomes will be more aligned with the concerns of the youth. Yet both critics and proponents do tend to share an intuitive assumption: the socio-economic profile of who participates is the primary determinant of who benefits from digitally mediated civic participation. Critics argue that, given the existing digital divide, unequal access to technology will tend to empower the already empowered, further deepening societal differences.
The latter tend to argue that, by enabling citizens to participate without constraints of time and distance, civic tech facilitates the participation of those who usually abstain from engaging with public issues, leading to more inclusive processes. Over the decades, the question of who participates in and who is excluded from participation mediated by technology has been the focus of both civic tech critics and proponents. From allowing individuals to report problems to local government to enabling the crowdsourcing of national legislation, civic tech aims to promote better policies and services – while contributing to more inclusive democratic institutions.Ĭould civic tech affect public issues in a way that benefits some and excludes others? “ Civic tech ” broadly refers to the use of digital technologies to support a range of citizen engagement processes.
0 kommentar(er)
