Recommendations for a Healthy Digital Public Sphere

References

• Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Cryderman, J. (2013). Communication, persuasion, and the conditioning value of selective exposure: Like minds may unite and divide but they mostly tune out. Political Communication, 30(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Murphy, C. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161100123X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J. S., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. (2018). Deliberative democracy: An introduction. In A. Bächtiger (Ed.), The oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 1–32). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beauchamp, N. (2020). Modeling and measuring deliberation online. In S. Foucault Welles Band González-Bailón (Ed.), The oxford handbook of networked communication (pp. 321–349). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y. (2000). From consumers to users: Shifting the deeper structures of regulation toward sustainable commons and user access. Federal Communications Law Journal, 52(3), 561–579.
   Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets andfreedom. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (2001). The new media and our political communication discontents: Democratizing cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/713768514
   Google Scholar
• Bouvier, G., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2020). Communication in the age of twitter: The nature of online deliberation. In G. Bouvier & J. Rosenbaum, (Eds.), Twitter, the public sphere, and the chaos of online deliberation. Springer International Publishing AG.
   Google Scholar
• Burri, M. (2016). Nudging as a tool of media policy: Understanding and fostering exposure diversity in the age of digital media. In K. Mathis & A. Tor (Eds.), Nudging: Possibilities, limitations, and applications in European law and economics (pp. 227–247). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S., & Gastil, J. (2021). Deliberation, democracy, and the digital landscape. Political Studies, 69(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719901123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chardel, P. A., & Reber, B. (2011). Risques ethiques. Communications, 88(1), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.3917/commu.088.0149
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, & Fung. (2021). Democracy and the digital public sphere. In L. Bemholz (Ed.), Digital technology and democratic theory (pp. 23–61). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. (2020). Council conclusions on safeguarding a free and pluralistic media system (2020/C 422/08) . Official Journal of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2018). Public sphere participation online: The ambiguities of affect. International Journal of Communication, 12(1), 2052–2070.
   Google Scholar
• Dommett, K., & Verovšek, P. J. (2021). Promoting democracy in the digital public sphere: Applying theoretical ideals to online political communication. Javnost/The Public, 28(4), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2021.1955206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doorn, N. (2012). Exploring responsibility rationales in research and development (R&D). Science, Technology, & Human Values, 37(3), 180–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243911405344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrenfeld, D., & Barton, M. (2019). Online public spheres in the era of fake news: Implications for the composition classroom. Computers and Composition, 54(1), 102525.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2014). Responsible research and innovation: Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, H., & Schwartzberg, M. (2021). The democratic consequences of the new public sphere. In L. Bernholz (Ed.), Digital technology and democratic theory (pp. 191–218). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, B. (2021). Technologizing democracy or democratizing technology? A layered- architecture perspective on potentials and challenges. In Bernholz (Ed.), Digital technology and democratic theory (pp. 274–308). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forestal, J. (2021). Constructing digital democracies: Facebook, arendt, and the politics of design. Political Studies, 69(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719890807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25(25/26), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
   Google Scholar
• Gilardi, F., Gessler, T., Kubli, M., & Müller, S. (2022). Social media and political agenda setting. Political Communication, 39(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1910390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golding, P., & Murdock, G. (2001). Digital divides: Communications policy and its contradictions. New Economy, 8(2), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0041.00196
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1962/1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Helberger, N. (2015). Merely facilitating or actively stimulating diverse media choices? Public service media at the crossroads. International Journal of Communication, 9(special sections), 1324–1340.
   Google Scholar
• Helberger, N., Karppinen, K., & D’acunto, L. (2018). Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information, Communication & Society, 21(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1271900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helberger, N., Pierson, J., & Poell, T. (2018). Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391913
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holst, C., & Moe, H. (2021). Deliberative systems theory and citizens’ use of online media: Testing a critical theory of democracy on a high achiever. Political Studies, 69(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719890809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Introna, L. D. (2000). Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16(3), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240050133634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladd, J. M. (2010). The role of media distrust in partisan voting. Political Behavior, 32(4), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9123-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maia, R. (2018). Deliberative media. In Bächtiger A, Dryzek JS, Mansbridge J, & Warren M (Eds.), The oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 348–364). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Margetts, H. (2013). The internet and democracy. In Dutton W. H. (Ed.), The oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 421–437). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miel, P., & Farris, R. (2008). News and information as digital media come of age. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
   Google Scholar
• Napoli, P. M. (2011). Exposure diversity reconsidered. Journal of Information Policy, 1, 246–259. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.1.2011.0246
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2020). Innovative citizen participation and new democratic Iinstitutions: Catchingthe deliberative wave. OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., & Pansera, M. (2019). Responsible innovation and responsible research andInnovation. In Simon D, Kuhlmann S, Stamm J, & Canzler W (Eds.), Handbook on science and public policy (pp. 26–48). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2021). After democracy: Imagining our political future. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, B. (2019). Taking moral responsibility seriously to foster responsible research and innovation. In Gianni R, Pearson J, & Reber B (Eds.), Responsible research and innovation: From concepts to practices (pp. 50–73). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schradie, J., & Bekirsky, L. (2022). The digital production gap in the algorithmic era. In Rohlinger D. A. & Sobieraj S (Eds.), The oxford handbook of digital media sociology (pp. 567–585). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwanholz, J., Graham, T., & Stoll, P. T. (Eds.). (2018). Managing democracy in the digital age: Internet regulation, social media use, and online civic engagement. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. B. (2020). Mediated interation in the digital age. Theory, Culture & Society, 37(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276418808592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valdivia and Guston. (2015). Responsible innovation: A primer for policymakers. The Brookings Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Poel, I., & Sand, M. (2021). Varieties of responsibility: Two problems of responsible innovation. Synthese, 198(S19), 4769–4787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01951-7
   Google Scholar
• Van de Steeg, M. (2009). Theoretical reflections on the public sphere in the European Union: A network of communication or a political community? (Bozzini E, Ed.). Mapping the European Public Sphere: Institutions, Media and Civil Society.
   Google Scholar
• Volkmer, I. (2019). The transnationalization of public spheres and global policy. In Stone D & Moloney K (Eds.), The oxford handbook of global policy and transnational administration (pp. 241–256). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Owen R, Heintz M, & Bessant J. R. (Eds.), Responsible innovation (pp. 51–74). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar