INTRODUCTION

Citizenship, as a political and social concept, dates back to Ancient Greece, where Aristotle structured one of the first theories on the subject, although its practice was restricted to citizens of the Athenian polis between the 5th and 4th centuries BC (Neves, 2010). Since then, citizenship has occupied a central place in contemporary democratic discussions. Brito Neto (1999, p. 232) states that “citizenship is at the center of a contemporary democratic conception and, therefore, is necessarily present in everyone’s political discourse.” In this context, citizen participation and transparency are seen as fundamental manifestations of deliberative democracy (Ribeiro et al., 2013).

However, the modern notion of citizenship emerged with greater force during the French Revolution, where distinctions were made between vassals and citizens, and between active and passive citizens (Benevides, 1994). This distinction already compromised the new regime’s egalitarian ideal, since full citizenship was granted only to a portion of the population. For Benevides (1994), in modern constitutional theory, a citizen is one who maintains a legal bond with the State, possessing rights and duties guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. Although free and equal before the law, citizens remain subjects of the State, which reinforces the need for political education for the full exercise of citizenship.

Collective action in public life is reinforced by the notion of organized civil society, which, according to Santos (2010), is formed by actors who, aware of their demands and rights, mobilize autonomously to influence political, social, and environmental decisions. Social movements, NGOs, and associations are examples of these groups, which act to defend collective interests and promote new values ​​such as social justice, sustainability, and cultural preservation. Organized civil society emerges as a protagonist in the redefinition of public priorities, challenging the State to adopt more democratic and transparent practices.

Torres (2008) contributes to this discussion by defining social movements as collectives structured by leaders and resources, which organize to compete for political space in specific territories. However, in digital social networks, leadership is often based on prestige, since the means for articulation and action are accessible to all. This reflects a new model of social engagement, decentralized and agile, enabled by Information and Communication Technologies, which allows for the expansion of the reach and influence of social movements in local and global contexts.

Digital citizenship emerges as an extension of this historical process, studied by Neves (2010) based on two case studies: Portuguese digital cities and Barack Obama’s campaign in the United States. Castells (2003) observes that, in the late 1990s, social movements and political actors began to use the internet as their primary instrument for action, information, organization, and participation. Digital cities, according to Neves (2010), represent an evolution of the initial concept, moving from purely digital spaces to territorial realities that integrate the physical and virtual in promoting citizenship.

Villanueva et al. (2016) emphasize that digital citizenship is linked to an understanding of the cultural and social dynamics mediated by Information and Communication Technology, requiring digital competencies that enable the ethical, safe, and responsible use of information. Digital citizens must be able to participate critically in virtual environments, developing skills that allow them to navigate with security, privacy, and discernment. This form of citizenship is shaped by new forms of digital socialization and the expansion of spaces for public deliberation, promoting a new model of political and social participation.

Finally, Di Felice et al. (2018) argue that digital citizenship requires educational processes based on knowledge of norms, rights, and responsibilities in the virtual environment. UNESCO highlights media literacy as essential for the conscious use of digital platforms and combating disinformation (O’Hagan, 2023). Based on this, Di Felice (2008) emphasizes that digital political participation must reject personalism and a focus on power, prioritizing collaborative solutions and collective construction. Thus, the idea that digital citizenship represents a new stage of democracy, based on co-governance, communication ethics, and citizen action mediated by technology, is consolidated.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopts a qualitative, exploratory, and bibliographic approach, aiming to analyze the dynamics of digital citizenship, transparency, and cyberdemocracy within the context of social media. The objective is to understand how digital platforms reshape citizen participation and public governance, as well as to critically assess the role of algorithmic systems and big tech companies in the configuration of democratic practices in the digital environment.

The research is structured through a theoretical-conceptual framework, drawing on classical and contemporary authors in the fields of political science, communication, and digital sociology. Key theoretical contributions include Neves (2010), Benevides (1994), Castells (2003), Recuero (2009; 2017), Di Felice (2008), and Zuboff (2021), among others. These authors support the construction of concepts such as digital citizenship, social networks, cyberdemocracy, transparency, surveillance capitalism, and algorithmic governance.

To illustrate theoretical discussions and validate analytical perspectives, the study incorporates documentary analysis of secondary data from official reports and institutional research. These include documents from UNESCO (2024, 2025), the IBGE (2023), and platforms such as the Internet Health Report by Mozilla. In addition, news articles and case studies (e.g., the São Paulo Court of Justice’s cloud contract, Meta’s policy changes, and the 2022 Brazilian elections) are examined to contextualize theoretical critiques in real-world examples.

The work applies critical discourse analysis to the role of digital platforms in mediating political engagement and public transparency. The interpretative process is guided by a multidisciplinary lens that considers technological, political, ethical, and social dimensions. By articulating theoretical reflection with empirical references, the study seeks to contribute to the academic debate on democratic innovation and governance in the digital age, pointing to the challenges and potentialities of a connected democracy.

DYNAMICS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN DIGITAL SOCIAL MEDIA

Understanding the behavior of individuals and groups on digital social networks requires the support of theories that elucidate technology-mediated interactions. In this field, the contributions of Recuero (2009; 2017) stand out, as they are fundamental for defining key concepts that differentiate digital social networks from traditional networks or technical computer structures. For Recuero (2009), the term “network” can take on different meanings: in computer science, it refers to the connection between devices; in social sciences, it designates structures composed of actors and their social ties. Complementing this idea, Castells (1999) defines networks as sets of interconnected nodes, each node being a point of social connection.

In the digital context, these connections become mediated by communication technologies. Recuero (2009) conceptualizes social networks on the internet as computer-mediated social groupings, expressed on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (currently X), and Instagram, which make previously implicit social structures visible. The author (Recuero, 2017) also emphasizes the difference between a social network, which refers to the social structure itself, and a social networking site, which is the technological interface that enables its manifestation. Thus, social networks are not limited to the technical design of the platforms, but are built through symbolic interactions between individuals.

These interactions are articulated through social ties, which can be weak or strong. Recuero (2009) explains that strong ties are marked by intimacy and trust, common in family relationships and close friendships, while weak ties, although less intense, are essential for the dissemination of information between different communities. To analyze such structures, Social Network Analysis (SNA) proves effective. As Fragoso, Recuero, and Amaral (2011) point out, SNA allows us to understand the circulation of information, influential actors, and the dynamics of viralization within networks.

Another relevant concept is social capital, which in digital networks is built through the visibility and reputation of actors, influenced by interactions and engagement with content (Recuero, 2017). Visibility, in turn, is conditioned by platform algorithms, such as on Facebook, where actions such as liking, commenting, or sharing impact the reach of a post (Recuero et al., 2015). Such actions determine what will be prioritized or made invisible in the network’s information ecosystem, shaping users’ collective perception and communication behavior.

Digital social networks are also arenas for symbolic disputes, where identities, discourses, and values ​​are negotiated. Emerging behaviors such as cooperation, conflict, and collective mobilization are intensely manifested in this environment (Recuero, 2009). The persistence and replicability of digital interactions, according to Recuero (2017), increase the dissemination of information, but also generate risks such as decontextualization and undue exposure. These dynamics intensify in times of crisis or political mobilization, revealing the transformative, and also ambivalent, potential of these networks.

The political dimension of networks is discussed by Sampaio et al. (2019), who highlight three axes of cyberdemocracy in Brazil: e-participation, online deliberation, and digital transparency. These processes are mediated by digital social networks, but face limitations such as the control of platforms by big tech companies and inequalities in access. Recuero (2009) warns that considering these spaces as fully democratic is a mistake, as algorithmic logic imposes filters and prioritizations that directly affect the formation of public opinion and access to information.

Finally, it is necessary to reflect on the strategic use of networks by public institutions. Viegas et al. (2022) analyze how Courts of Auditors and Public Prosecutors use networks such as Twitter and Instagram to promote accountability and transparency. Similarly, Carneiro and Brígido (2023) examine the impact of algorithms on the 2022 election, showing how these technologies shape users’ information experiences. These studies reinforce the role of networks as structuring agents of contemporary social relations and the importance of public policies that ensure their ethical and democratic regulation.

TRANSPARENCY AND CYBERDEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL MEDIA

When addressing transparency, Landim (2013) emphasizes that it is not always established as a two-way street, as citizen participation in political decisions remains limited, except for specific moments such as plebiscites and online voting. For Rothberg (2014), the internet can function as an effective tool for presenting public information in an attractive manner, favoring the strengthening of democracy. In this sense, the digital network emerges as a relevant means for expanding the contemporary democratic experience.

Miguel (2024) argues that access to information is a fundamental condition for the exercise of citizenship and for effective social control of Public Administration. Transparency, in this context, transcends the merely advertising aspect, consolidating itself as a structuring principle of modern administrative law. However, the author also denounces the persistence of cultural and institutional barriers that compromise access to information, even after legislative advances, such as the Transparency Portal (2004) and the Access to Information Law (2011).

Lévy (2002) emphasizes that the global interconnection of computers creates a new interactive public space, with the potential to redefine the foundations of governance and promote new forms of politics. For him, cyberspace expands freedom of expression and communication, overcoming the limitations imposed by legacy media. Martins and Teixeira (2025) reinforce this view by observing that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, society was compelled to intensify its digital interactions, which definitively transformed the ways we relate to one another and exercise citizenship.

Recent data from the IBGE (2023) reveal that 87.2% of Brazilians aged 10 and over use the internet at home, with smartphones being the most used device (98.9%). Furthermore, 83.6% of the population accesses social media, highlighting the central role of these media in public communication and the exercise of democracy. Therefore, it is imperative that public acts are also available on these channels to ensure effective transparency and citizen participation.

Miguel (2024) also points out that an excess of information can result in misinformation or decision-making paralysis. He highlights setbacks during the Bolsonaro administration, especially during the pandemic, when data availability was restricted. The author also emphasizes the importance of the Access to Information Law (LAI) (Law 12,527/2011) as a democratic and anti-authoritarian achievement, reversing the logic of secrecy and making transparency the rule. From this perspective, digital social networks act as important tools for accessing information and expressing collective intelligence, as anticipated by Lévy (1999; 2002).

Internationally, Meta announced significant changes to content moderation policies in 2025, focusing on freedom of expression and replacing fact-checking with a user-driven self-verification system called Community Notes. However, experts such as Machado (2021) criticize this approach, believing it contributes to increased disinformation and unemployment among content moderators. Furthermore, government dependence on big tech undermines digital sovereignty, as warned by Silveira (2021), who denounces, for example, the São Paulo Court of Justice’s attempt to contract cloud storage with foreign companies, exposing sensitive public data.

O’Hagan (2023) reports research by UNESCO and the IPSOS Institute showing that 85% of people fear the effects of online disinformation. Digital governance, according to UNESCO (Diretrizes…, 2024; Internet…, 2025), must guarantee citizen participation, transparency, and human rights, combating the hegemony of private platforms. The current context, therefore, requires not only access to information, but also regulation of big tech, as proposed by PL 2630/2020, to ensure a fairer, more democratic, and safer digital environment.

TO WHAT EXTENT IS THERE CONNECTED DEMOCRACY?

Bobbio (2000) already envisioned, as early as the 1980s, the idea of ​​a “total democracy,” in which citizens could continuously express their opinions on all political issues. Although this vision still remains the stuff of fiction, technological advances have made it more feasible to imagine a scenario where each person could cast their vote directly in an electronic system, without leaving home. At the time, the internet did not have the presence it has today; however, discussions about cyberdemocracy and digital governance have intensified, focusing on efficiency, transparency, and citizen participation.

According to Gomes (2025), the concept of digital democracy has slowly consolidated over the past few decades. Terms such as “electronic democracy,” “virtual democracy,” or “remote democracy” have been used to attempt to account for these transformations. Only with the popularization of the internet, beginning in the 1990s, did digital practices of political participation intensify, bringing the theory of direct democracy closer to a feasible technical reality. In this sense, technologies have come to be seen not only as support, but as active elements in the construction of democracy.

Torres (2008) discusses the inclusion of digital technologies in democracy, highlighting that they alter forms of management and decision-making, creating new networks of citizen interaction. Digital social networks, in this context, reconfigure the bonds between individuals and public institutions. Lévy (2004) points out that current political systems were shaped in a time of slower change and now face complex challenges such as environmental preservation, economic transformations, and social cohesion, which demand broad citizen participation but encounter obstacles such as digital illiteracy and technological exclusion.

Silveira (2021) observes that informational capitalism has promoted symbolic digitalization and the formation of a global market for personal data. Digital capitalism has given way to “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff, 2021), marked by mass data extraction. Companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft profit from user data, transforming it into a strategic resource. Srnicek (2017) calls these corporations “platforms,” ​​whose economic logic is based on the large-scale collection, processing, and sale of personal information.

Seto (2024) analyzes how digital labor contributes to this model, identifying practices such as the wage-based production of likes and fake news as part of the extraction of surplus value. Faustino and Lippold (2023) denounce algorithmic racism on platforms, revealing how big tech companies impose digital colonialism on peripheral populations while simultaneously economically exploiting their data. As an example, they cite Facebook’s attempt to provide free internet in underdeveloped countries by restricting access to the network to its own services.

Machado (2021) exposes how content moderation is outsourced to countries in the Global South, where workers face precarious conditions. Even in the United States, moderators have sued Facebook for psychological harm caused by exposure to extreme content, a situation that has not been repeated in places like India and the Philippines, whose laws do not guarantee the same rights. These facts reveal profound inequalities between the Northern and Southern hemispheres and reinforce the colonial nature of the Big Tech structure, including with regard to the mental health of their workers.

Even with technological advances, doubts remain about the true privacy of democratic acts practiced by cybercitizens on social media. Big Tech’s data monopoly, combined with algorithmic control and information manipulation, raises concerns about information sovereignty. Abdala (2025) and the article Tarifaço de Trump (2025) warn of the alignment between these platforms and the interests of foreign powers. Thus, although a connected democracy is under construction, it still faces structural limits, inequalities, and threats to information freedom that require critical vigilance by society and governments.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The construction of digital citizenship and connected democracy represents an ongoing process shaped by technological, political, and social transformations. From its roots in classical notions of citizenship to the complexities of contemporary digital engagement, the evolution of democratic participation underscores the growing interdependence between citizens, the State, and technological infrastructures. The emergence of cyberdemocracy brings opportunities for expanded transparency, deliberation, and civic involvement, yet it also highlights enduring inequalities in access, literacy, and infrastructure that limit the full realization of digital rights.

Digital social networks have redefined how individuals interact with public institutions and participate in collective decision-making. These platforms facilitate new forms of symbolic interaction, political mobilization, and access to public information, but they also operate under the control of private corporations whose algorithmic logics shape visibility, opinion, and behavior. As studies by Recuero, Castells, and others demonstrate, digital engagement is not inherently democratic; it is conditioned by technological affordances, platform governance, and the political economy of data.

Furthermore, the increasing commodification of user data, as explored by scholars like Silveira, Zuboff, and Seto, raises critical concerns about surveillance capitalism, algorithmic bias, and the colonial dimensions of global tech infrastructure. The outsourcing of labor, algorithmic manipulation, and unequal access to digital protections all point to the urgent need for regulatory frameworks that prioritize transparency, human rights, and digital sovereignty. The recent shifts in moderation policies by companies like Meta exemplify the risks of privatized governance over public digital spaces.

The promise of connected democracy lies not only in expanding access to digital tools but in fostering critical, informed, and equitable participation. Governments must assume responsibility for protecting citizens’ rights in the digital sphere through inclusive public policies, ethical data practices, and transparent communication strategies. Civil society, researchers, and policymakers must continue to scrutinize the intersection between technology and democracy to ensure that digital advancements serve collective interests rather than corporate agendas. Only through collective vigilance and collaborative governance can digital citizenship fulfill its potential as a transformative force for democratic renewal.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

ABDALA, Vitor. Deportações em massa podem gerar déficit de mão de obra nos EUA. 2025. Disponible in: https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/economia/noticia/2025-01/deportacoes-em-massa-podem-gerar-deficit-de-mao-de-obra-nos-eua. Accessed in: August 7, 2025.

BENEVIDES, Maria Victória. Cidadania e Democracia. São Paulo: Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, 1994. Disponible in: https://www.scielo.br/j/ln/a/LTSGRTDqFD4X74DxLsw9Krz. Accessed in: June 12, 2025.

BOBBIO, Norberto. O futuro da democracia. Trad. Marco Aurélio Nogueira. 9ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. 2000.

BRITO NETO, Joãomar. Informação e cidadania, a nova configuração da democracia. Comunicação & Informação: Goiânia, Goiás, v. 2, n. 2, p. 229–242, 1999. Disponible in: https://revistas.ufg.br/ci/article/view/22856. Accessed in: December 22, 2024.

CARNEIRO, Gabriel; BRÍGIDO, Edimar. Democracia e Algoritmos: a modulação da autodeterminação política no processo eleitoral brasileiro. Dourados: Revista Jurídica UNIGRAN, v. 25, n. 50, 2023. Disponible in: https://www.unigran.br/revistas/juridica/trabalho/185. Accessed in: June 14, 2025.

CASTELLS, Manuel. A Sociedade em Rede. São Paulo: Editora Paz e Terra, vol I, 1999.

CASTELLS, Manuel. A Galáxia da Internet: reflexões sobre internet, negócios e sociedade. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2003.

DI FELICE, Massimo. Das Tecnologias da Democracia para as Tecnologias da Colaboração. In: DI FELICE, Massimo. Do Público para as Redes: a comunicação digital e as novas formas de participação social. São Caetano do Sul: Difusão Editora, 2008.

DI FELICE, Massimo; PIREDDU, Mario; KERCKHOVE, Derrick; MIRANDA, Jose; MARTINEZ, J. Bragança; ACCOTO, Cosimo. Manifesto pela Cidadania Digital. Juiz de Fora: Revista Lumina, v. 12, n. 3, 2018. Disponible in: https://periodicos.ufjf.br/index.php/lumina/article/view/21565/11652. Accessed in: June 12, 2025.

DIRETRIZES para a governança das plataformas digitais. Unesco. 2024. Disponible in: https://www.unesco.org/pt/articles/diretrizes-para-governanca-das-plataformas-digitais. Accessed in: July 21, 2025.

FAUSTINO, Deivison; LIPPOLD, Walter. Colonialismo Digital: por uma crítica hacker-fanoniana. São Paulo: Boitempo. 2023.

FRAGOSO, Suely; RECUERO, Raquel; AMARAL, Adriana. Métodos de Pesquisa para Internet. Editora Sulina: Porto Alegre, 2011.

GOMES, Wilson. A Democracia no Mundo Digital: história, problemas e temas. São Paulo: Editora SESC. 2025.

INTERNET Governance. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.unesco.org/en/internet-governance#. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2025.

LANDIM, Ilana. Um estudo sobre a relação entre a democracia digital e a participação política a partir do debate sobre o Programa Mais Médicos no Facebook. Revista Mídia e Cotidiano. 2013. Disponible in: https://periodicos.uff.br/midiaecotidiano/article/view/9702/6828. Accessed in: May 30, 2024.

LÉVY, Pierre. Cibercultura. São Paulo: 34, 1999.

LÉVY, Pierre. Ciberdemocracia. Lisboa: Editions Odile Jacob, 2002.

LÉVY, Pierre. Inteligencia Colectiva: por una antropología del ciberespacio. Tradução do francês por Felino Martínez Álvarez. Washington: Organización Panamericana de la Salud, 2004. Disponible in: https://ciudadanosconstituyentes.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/lc3a9vy-pierre-inteligencia-colectiva-por-una-antropologc3ada-del-ciberespacio-2004.pdf. Accessed in: June 14, 2025.

MACHADO, Débora. A Colonização dos Dados como Produto das Operações das Mídias Sociais no Sul Global. In: CASSINO, João; SOUZA, Joyce; SILVEIRA, Sérgio Amadeu. Colonialismo de Dados: como opera a trincheira algorítmica na guerra neoliberal. São Paulo: Autonomia Literária. 2021.

MARTINS, Allysson; TEIXEIRA, Juliana. Não era só uma gripezinha, mas desinformação. Florianópolis: Insular, 2025.

MIGUEL, Vinícius. Contextos e Dinâmicas do Acesso à Informação e Transparência Pública no Estado Brasileiro: opacidades, ilusões e metamorfoses. Revista Direito, Economia e Globalização, [S. l.], v. 4, n. 1, 2024. Disponible in: https://revistadedireito.catolicasc.org.br/index.php/revistadedireito/article/view/65. Accessed in: July 17, 2025.

NEVES, Bárbara. Cidadania Digital? Das cidades digitais a Barack Obama: uma abordagem crítica. In: MORGADO, Isabel; ROSAS, António. Cidadania Digital. Covilhã: 2010. Disponible in: https://be.age-mgpoente.pt/view/308/Cidadania%20Digital%20-%20Isabel%20Salema%20Morgado%20e%20Antonio.pdf. Accessed in: June 12, 2025.

O’HAGAN, Clare. Desinformação online: UNESCO divulga plano de ação para regular plataformas de redes sociais. 2023. Disponible in: https://www.unesco.org/pt/articles/desinformacao-online-unesco-divulga-plano-de-acao-para-regular-plataformas-de-redes-sociais. Accessed in: June 15, 2025.

RECUERO, Raquel. Redes sociais na internet. Porto Alegre: Editora Meridional, 2009.

RECUERO, Raquel; BASTOS, Marco; ZAGO, Gabriela. Análise de Redes para Mídia Social. Porto Alegre: Sulina. 2015.

RECUERO, Raquel. Introdução à análise de redes sociais online. Salvador: EDUFBA. 2017.

RIBEIRO, Bruna; TEMER, Ana Carolina; TUZZO, Simone. Cidadania e democracia deliberativa na era digital – para além de Habermas. Comunicação & Informação: Goiânia, Goiás, v. 16, n. 1, p. 186–201, 2013. Disponible in: https://revistas.ufg.br/ci/article/view/26706. Accessed in: December 20, 2024.

SAMPAIO, Rafael; BRAGA, Sergio; CARLOMAGNO, Marcio; MARIOTO, Djiovanni; BRUM, Murilo; BORGES, Tiago. Estado da arte da democracia digital no Brasil: oferta e sobrevivência das iniciativas (1999-2016). Revista do Serviço Público, [S. l.], v. 70, n. 4, p. 693-734, 2019. Disponible in: https://revista.enap.gov.br/index.php/RSP/article/view/3543. Accessed in: September 27, 2024.

SANTOS, Victor. A “Era do conhecimento” e as Problemáticas Globais: manifestações de cidadania participativa na sociedade da informação. In: MORGADO, Isabel; Rosas, António. Cidadania Digital. Covilhã: 2010. Disponible in: https://be.age-mgpoente.pt/view/308/Cidadania%20Digital%20-%20Isabel%20Salema%20Morgado%20e%20Antonio.pdf. Accessed in: June 12, 2025.

SETO, Kenzo. O Algoritmo e o Capital. Curitiba: APPRIS Editora, 2024.

SILVEIRA, Sérgio Amadeu. A hipótese do colonialismo de dados e o neoliberalismo. In: CASSINO, João; SOUZA, Joyce; SILVEIRA, Sérgio Amadeu. Colonialismo de Dados: como opera a trincheira algorítmica na guerra neoliberal. São Paulo: Autonomia Literária. 2021.

Srnicek, Nick. Platform Capitalism. Nova Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2017.

TARIFAÇO DE TRUMP: taxas de 50% contra o Brasil entram em vigor nesta quarta-feira. Portal G1 Economia. 2025. Disponible in: https://g1.globo.com/economia/noticia/2025/08/06/tarifaco-de-trump-taxas-de-50percent-contra-o-brasil-entram-em-vigor-nesta-quarta-feira.ghtml. Accessed in: August 7, 2025.

TORRES, Juliana. Cyborgcracia: entre a gestão digital dos territórios e as redes sociais digitais. In: DI FELICE, Massimo. Do Público para as Redes: a comunicação digital e as novas formas de participação social. São Caetano do Sul: Difusão Editora, 2008.

VIEGAS, Rafael; ABRUCIO, Fernando; LOUREIRO, Maria Rita; TEIXEIRA, Marco Antonio; BORALI, Natasha. A comunicação dos Tribunais de Contas e Ministérios Públicos nas redes sociais: os desafios da accountability na democracia digital. Rio de Janeiro: Revista de Administração Pública, 2022.  Disponible in: https://www.scielo.br/j/rap/a/Jy98XQ9xScSd7kFYMTmVwNf/abstract/?lang=pt. Accessed in: June 14, 2025.

VILLANUEVA, Andrea; CARMONA, Edith; GUEVARA, Sandra; BERMEO, José Roberto. La participación digital en la construcción de la e-democracia y ciudadanía digital. Guadalajara: Revista Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, vol. 7, num. 13, 2016. Disponible in: https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/ride/v7n13/2007-7467-ride-7-13-00126.pdf. Accessed in: June 12, 2025.

ZUBOFF, Shoshana. A era do capitalismo de vigilância. Rio de Janeiro: Intrínseca, 2021.

ZUCKERBERG, Mark. It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression. 2025. Disponible in: https://www.instagram.com/zuck/reel/DEhf2uTJUs0/. Accessed in: January 7, 2025.