#digitalcitizens

So, the internet. We’re all on it, we all contribute to it, and yet, sometimes, it feels like it’s running us instead of the other way around. Being a digital citizen means more than just existing online. It’s about engaging thoughtfully, challenging misinformation, and using social media as a tool for empowerment rather than letting it manipulate us. Digital activism, intersectionality, and algorithmic power all shape our online experiences, and it’s time we take a closer look at how they work together.

What is digital citizenship?

At its core, digital citizenship is about how we act online and the impact of those actions. It involves:

Thinking critically (spotting fake news, questioning sources, avoiding echo chambers).

Engaging ethically (not spreading harmful content, calling out injustice, contributing positively).

Demanding better from platforms (understanding how they operate and holding them accountable).

But here’s the kicker: the platforms we use aren’t neutral. They’re designed to keep us engaged, and that means what we see is carefully curated by algorithms. As Van Dijck et al. (2018) explain, platforms use mechanisms like datafication, commodification, and selection to shape our digital experiences. That means marginalized voices often get pushed aside, while the loudest, most controversial content gets amplified. This isn’t accidental—it’s how the system is built.

The Power (and Pitfalls) of Hashtag Publics

Social media has transformed activism. Hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #FreePalestine aren’t just trending topics—they’re organizing tools that bring people together across borders and cultures. Hashtag publics create digital spaces where issues that mainstream media ignores can gain traction (Dobrin, 2020). But just because hashtags can spark change doesn’t mean they’re always safe from manipulation.

Misinformation thrives in viral spaces. The same tools that help movements grow also allow conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns to spread rapidly.

Censorship and content moderation disproportionately silence marginalized voices. The Tumblr NSFW ban in 2018 wiped out entire LGBTQ+ communities overnight, showing how platform policies can erase important conversations.

Algorithmic bias affects visibility. Social media platforms are designed to boost certain narratives while suppressing others, reinforcing existing inequalities (Fazelpour & Danks, 2021)

So, what do we do? Understanding that platforms aren’t neutral is step one. Step two is actively questioning what we consume, supporting independent media, and amplifying voices that algorithms suppress.

Intersectionality in the Digital Age

Not everyone experiences the internet the same way. Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) reminds us that our identities—race, gender, economic background—affect how we move through digital spaces. Some examples:

Black Lives Matter highlighted digital activism’s power but also exposed the risks of online surveillance and doxxing for Black activists.

Women and LGBTQ+ users face disproportionate harassment online, making “free speech” debates far more complicated than they seem.

The digital divide is real—not everyone has equal access to the internet or media literacy skills, which means participation isn’t as democratic as we like to think.

If we want the internet to be truly inclusive, we need to push for platform accountability, stronger digital rights, and more equitable online spaces.

Conclusion

Digital citizenship isn’t just about playing it safe online—it’s about actively shaping the internet into a better space. That means questioning power structures, engaging critically, and demanding transparency from the platforms that control so much of what we see. So, the next time you retweet, share, or engage in a digital movement, ask yourself: Are we using social media, or is it using us?

References

Crenshaw, K. (1991). On Intersectionality: Essential Writings. New Press.

Dobrin, D. (2020). The Hashtag in Digital Activism: a Cultural Revolution. Journal of Cultural Analysis and Social Change, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.20897/jcasc/8298

Fazelpour, S., & Danks, D. (2021). Algorithmic bias: Senses, sources, solutions. Philosophy Compass, 16(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12760

Pangrazio, L., & Sefton-Green, J. (2021). Digital Rights, Digital Citizenship and Digital Literacy: What’s the Difference? Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2021.1.616

Empowering Future Innovators: Technology & Telecommunications at Scholars Paradise!

Citizenship is a status bestowed to those who are full members of a community, with each who possess such status equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed (Marshall & Bottomore 1996). The notion of ‘digital citizenship’ may be understood as the regular and effective use of information technologies such as the internet to facilitate civil, political, and social life through online communication (Mossberger, Tolbert & McNeal 2007). The term ‘platformisation’ from a media and cultural studies perspective may be defined as the economic, governmental, and infrastructural extensions of digital platforms into web and app ecosystems (Nieborg & Poell 2018).

These notions may be used to frame radical shifts in the interrelatedness and co-dependencies of individuals as members of cultural industries. They may also be applied to the relationship between content creators and consumers – and the platforms which facilitate such engagement. We can look at this more closely through the case of Twitter – a private company, however, a platform utilized by US president, Donald Trump. Twitter has been an important tool for the president, particularly during the 2016 election in promoting a message of authenticity and genuineness, positioning himself as a personable outsider and trust-worthy political leader (Enli 2017).  

However, Twitter has come to form a contentious relationship with the president, with two of his recent Tweets containing a “fact check” link beneath the politically oriented posts. This prompted the president to sign an executive order reviewing technology platforms’ immunity from liability and “unchecked power” over censorship of third-party content (Tapp 2020). Indeed, as Duffy, Poell & Nieborg (2019) argue, firms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube cannot continue to be regarded as mere ‘platforms’, but must be held accountable for their role and ability to impact culture, technology and political economies. With a high profile figure such as the president participating on Twitter, there is the propensity for messages and issues to be amplified very quickly (Milne 2020). In some instances this may be positive, however, it may also lead to unintended consequences and unnecessary conflict, perhaps requiring some form of censorship on a case-by-case basis.

The democratization of social media platforms has brought increasing difficulty associated with their ability to remain neutral and value-free when managing a broad spectrum of users. With the global number of internet users surpassing 4.54 billion - 3.8 billion of these being social media users (Hootsuite & We Are Social 2020), the democratic and economic landscape is undergoing an unprecedented shift in the way that members of society at all levels engage with one another. Stemming from this, what was perhaps unforeseen, however, are a plethora of ethical and judicial dilemmas which are taking place in a rapidly changing public sphere. It is this new landscape which is inhabited by an increasingly diverse gamut of figures across nearly all professions, interests, and affiliations - against a backdrop of laws which are still playing catch up with the growing capabilities of social media platforms. 

Large technology firms have the power to shape public discourse and dictate the media landscape. Yet, they do so without the judicial responsibility to warrant their actions beyond issuing a violation of their terms of use. Ultimately, a fundamental question remains: Is the use of these platforms merely a matter of choice - or do they constitute the very fabric of effective digital citizenship necessary to democratic participation, to which we are all entitled?

References:

Duffy, B, Poell, T & Nieborg, D 2019, ‘Platform Practices in the Cultural Industries: Creativity, Labor, and Citizenship’, Social Media + Society, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 205630511987967.

Enli, G 2017, ‘Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election’, European Journal of Communication, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 50-61.

Hootsuite & We Are Social 2020, Digital 2020: 3.8 billion people use social media - We Are Social, viewed 29 May 2020, <https://wearesocial.com/blog/2020/01/digital-2020-3-8-billion-people-use-social-media>.

Marshall, T & Bottomore, T 1996, Citizenship and Social Class, Pluto, London.

Milne, E 2020, 'Lecture 6, What is Digital Citizenship? How social media is changing the election process', MDA20009 Digital Communities, Learning materials via Canvas, Swinburne University of Technology, 15 June, Viewed 1 June 2020.

Mossberger, K, Tolbert, C & McNeal, R 2008, Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Nieborg, D & Poell, T 2018, ‘The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity’, New Media & Society, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 4275-4292.

Freedom of expression is a human right, the article 19 on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression including the freedom to hold opinions and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 2016).

During the last years the communication channels have changed a lot, 20 years ago people used to read the newspaper, listen to the radio and watch TV in way to know what’s going on with the world. Nowadays we have social media platforms to share our ideas and opinions and to access information.

It’s true that social media changed the way we communicate in many positive ways, but is not like that in all the countries, mass media is censored and social media too.

China is a great example of that with the social media revolution. People in China don’t have access to Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, the most important media platforms around the world.

But China is not the only country with freedom of expression problems. According to Reporters Without Borders, the world press freedom index in 2016 shows that Eritrea, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Syria and China are the countries with the biggest problems, having censorship in every communication channel.

(https://rsf.org/en/ranking)

And what is the main reason of that? The biggest player in those censorships is the government tolerance about sensitive issues affecting them.

But where is the citizen’s power? They are trying to find alternative forms of social media, but all that have many social, cultural and economic implications, and sometimes is really dangerous.

For the citizens is really difficult to fight for their rights but there are some organizations helping them. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), for example, launched an ironic campaign called “Great year of censorship” about 12 governors celebrating their victories over media freedom.

(http://www.slideshare.net/robingrassi/great-year-for-censorship)

The way in which the rules of social gaming platforms and the codes of conduct of real life society conflict was brought to my attention through the learning materials this week, and I found it interesting to note the intricacy of the virtual worlds. Where I once believed virtual gaming to be a place where people wasted time (and often money) investing themselves in fantasy worlds which provided them no benefit in their real lives, following this week’s work I was surprised to learn of the in depth nature of the games, and how whole digital worlds can be formed, comprising not only the physical but also the emotional connections of a real life world.

 By examining Eve Online, an MMOG (massively multiplayer online game) with more than half a million players world wide, I came to learn just how complex the workings of these virtual worlds really are. Not only do Eve gamers manufacture artificial lives of avatars on the screen in front of them, they also contribute to the development of the game, through interacting with the CSM (council of stellar management). The CSM allows players to communicate easily with other players and work for in-game rewards; something not offered by many other MMOGs. I think that the communication in which the gamers engage in with other players, using skills such as team work and leadership etc., in the forums is well-designed, as it puts to use real life skills in a virtual environment.

 Where the notion of MMOGs became more difficult for me to understand, was the constant overlapping and conflicting of real life laws and regulations, with laws, rules and codes designed by the games developers. Especially considering, as de Zwart and Humphries (2014) state, the player swaps back and forth between multiple roles, as does a regular human living a normal life. In the game sphere, the player will be in the mind set of the avatar – whatever game they are playing – however if they find they are In need of assistance, or are disrupted by something popping up on their computer screen, they immediately switch back into the role of themselves, the social gamer. So if a player is verbally harassing another in the game forum, which rules apply? Rules of the game? Or the rules of society? What if sexually inappropriate comments are being made from one player to another, but the rules of the game do not include situations such as this? Does the sexual harassment just go unnoticed, or would the codes of conduct of normal society apply, where sexual harassment be it verbal or physical is deemed a criminal act?

 I understand that social gaming must be a minefield to attempt to regulate, considering the constant back and forth switching between roles of the gamer and the role being played within the game, and the subsequent switching of codes of conduct. To me, de Zwart and Humphries (2014) have it one hundred percent correct in calling virtual worlds a “lawless frontier”.

 REFERENCES

de Zwart, M & Humphreys, S 2014,' The Lawless Frontier of Deep Space: Code as Law in EVE Online', Cultural Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 77-99.