REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/20072
Pełny rekord metadanych
Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
dc.contributor.authorMaceratini, Arianna-
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-16T07:19:23Z-
dc.date.available2026-04-16T07:19:23Z-
dc.date.issued2026-
dc.identifier.citationBiałostockie Studia Prawnicze, Vol. 31 nr 1, 2026, s. 27-41pl
dc.identifier.issn1689-7404-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/20072-
dc.description.abstractThe digital revolution, fuelled by information technologies, has profoundly transformed the perception of reality and subjective interactions, with significant political, legal, social and economic implications. Current communication technologies hold a pervasive, often opaque, computational power that develops in virtual contexts in which the individual merges with the digital environment. In this scenario, the risk is that algorithmic solicitations, based on in-depth knowledge of individual habits, produce a form of hidden governance of choices, accentuating the information asymmetry between users and digital service providers. The contemporary world, defined by data correlations and algorithmic selections, thus takes on the characteristics of a ‘black-box society’, in which the distinction between the state and the market is blurred, new forms of surveillance emerge, and democratic principles and the rule of law are called into question. In the absence of defined spatial boundaries, regulatory divergences between the United States and Europe on the right to freedom of expression highlight the need to harmonize different legal and cultural visions. Therefore a global regulatory approach is proposed that can integrate human values into algorithms and promote digital education as a tool to increase civic awareness and collective responsibility in the information ecosystem.pl
dc.language.isoenpl
dc.publisherFaculty of Law, University of Białystok; Temida 2pl
dc.rightsUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 4.0-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
dc.subjectcomputational powerpl
dc.subjectdigital informationpl
dc.subjectright of expressionpl
dc.subjectdemocracypl
dc.subjectrule of lawpl
dc.titleThe Digital Agora: Emerging Technologies, Freedom of Information and Democratic Spacepl
dc.typeArticlepl
dc.rights.holder© 2026 Arianna Maceratini published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribu tion-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.15290/bsp.2026.31.01.02-
dc.description.Emailarianna.maceratini@unimc.itpl
dc.description.AffiliationUniversity of Macerata, Italypl
dc.description.referencesAbbondante, F. (2017). Il ruolo dei social network nella lotta all’hate speech: un’analisi comparata fra l’esperienza statunitense e quella europea. Informatica e diritto, 43(1/2), 41–68.pl
dc.description.referencesAmato Mangiameli, A. C. (2019). Algoritmi e big data. Dalla carta sulla robotica. Rivista di filosofia del diritto/ Journal of Legal Philosophy, 8(1), 107–124.pl
dc.description.referencesAmato Mangiameli, A. C., & Campagnoli, M. N. (2020). Strategie digitali. #diritto_educazione_tecnologie. Giappichelli.pl
dc.description.referencesAneesh, A. (2006). Virtual migration: The programming of globalization. Duke University Press.pl
dc.description.referencesAneesh, A. (2009). Global labor: Algocratic modes of organization. Sociological Theory, 27(4), 347–370.pl
dc.description.referencesBarberis, M. (2020). Come internet sta uccidendo la democrazia. Populismo digitale. Chiarelettere.pl
dc.description.referencesBassini, M. (2019). La cassazione e il simulacro del provider attivo: Mala tempora currunt. MediaLaws – Rivista di Diritto dei Media, 2, 248–257.pl
dc.description.referencesBassini, M., Finocchiaro, G., & Pollicino, O. (2024, 7 October). Il 1 emendamento USA tutela le piattaforme e dà loro un ruolo editoriale. Il Sole 24 Ore. https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/ il-primo-emendamento-usa-tutela-piattaforme-e-da-loro-ruolo-editoriale-AFmB0MiCpl
dc.description.referencesBaumann, Z. (2010). Consumo, dunque sono. Laterza.pl
dc.description.referencesBradford, A. (2020). The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world. Oxford University Press.pl
dc.description.referencesCasadei, T., & Pietropaoli, S. (2021). Diritto e tecnologie informatiche. Questioni di informatica giuridica, prospettive istituzionali, sfide sociali. Wolters Kluwer.pl
dc.description.referencesCasonato, C. (2019a). Costituzione e intelligenza artificiale: un’agenda per il prossimo futuro. BioLaw Journal/ Rivista di BioDiritto, 25, 711–724.pl
dc.description.referencesCasonato, C. (2019b). Potenzialità e sfide dell’intelligenza artificiale. BioLaw Journal/Rivista di BioDiritto, 1, 177–182.pl
dc.description.referencesCouncil of the European Union, What is illegal offline should be illegal online: Council agrees position on the Digital Services Act, 25 November 2021, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/11/25/what-is-illegal-offline-should-be-illegal-online-council-agrees-on-position-on-the-digital-services-act/pl
dc.description.referencesDanaher, J. (2016). The threat of algocracy: Reality, resistance and accommodation. Philosophy & Technology, 29, 245–268.pl
dc.description.referencesDe Minico, G. (2019). Big Data e la debole resistenza delle categorie giuridiche. Privacy e lex mercatoria. Politica del diritto, 1, 89–115.pl
dc.description.referencesDe Tullio, M. F. (2016). La privacy e i big data verso una dimensione costituzionale collettiva. Politica del diritto, 4, 637–696.pl
dc.description.referencesDurante, M. (2019). Potere computazionale. L’impatto delle ICT su diritto, società, sapere. Meltemi.pl
dc.description.referencesEuropean Parliament and Council. (2000). Directive 2000 no. 31 on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/31/oj/engpl
dc.description.referencesEuropean Parliament and Council. (2022, 14 September). Regulation 2022/1925 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector and Amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32022R1925pl
dc.description.referencesEuropean Parliament and Council. (2022, 19 October). Regulation 2022/2065 on a Single Market for Digital Services and Amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/engpl
dc.description.referencesFabiano, L. (2023). Le potenzialità manipolative della democrazia digitale fra interessi pubblici e poteri privati. Diritto dell’informazione e dell’informatica, 4–5, 597–643.pl
dc.description.referencesFabiano, L. (2024). Content moderation e free speech clause: il controverso rapporto fra libertà e responsabilità delle piattaforme digitali nella più recente giurisprudenza della Corte suprema federale USA. Federalismi. Rivista di Diritto Pubblico, Italiano, Comparato, Europeo, 27, 88–107.pl
dc.description.referencesFaini, F. (2019). Data society. Governo dei dati e tutela dei diritti nell’era digitale. Giuffrè.pl
dc.description.referencesFaini, F. (2022, 8 June). Principi etici e giuridici per la tecnologia. Media2000. https://www.media2000.it/fernanda-faini-giurista-digitale-principi-etici-e-giuridici-per-la-tecnologia/pl
dc.description.referencesFloridi, L. (2012). La rivoluzione dell’informazione. Codice.pl
dc.description.referencesFloridi, L. (2017). La quarta rivoluzione. Come l’infosfera sta trasformando il mondo. Raffaello Cortina.pl
dc.description.referencesFoucault, M. (1975). Sorvegliare e punire. Nascita della prigione. Einaudi.pl
dc.description.referencesHabermas, J. (2002). Il futuro della natura umana. I rischi di una genetica liberale. Einaudi.pl
dc.description.referencesHabermas, J. (2017). La risposta democratica al populismo di destra. Micromega, 2, 4–24.pl
dc.description.referencesHabermas, J. (2023). Nuovo mutamento della sfera pubblica e politica deliberativa. Raffaello Cortina.pl
dc.description.referencesHan, B.-C. (2022). Le non-cose. Come abbiamo smesso di vivere il reale. Einaudi.pl
dc.description.referencesHan, B.-C. (2023). Infocrazia. Le nostre vite manipolate dalla rete. Giulio Einaudi Editore.pl
dc.description.referencesHayes, B. (2012). The surveillance-industrial complex. In Routledge handbook of surveillance studies (pp. 167–175). Routledge.pl
dc.description.referencesJasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co‐production of science and the social order. Routledge.pl
dc.description.referencesJudgment of the CJEU of 13 May 2014 on the case of Google Spain, S. L., Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos and Mario Costeja González. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1df672d5–05b4–11e4–831f-01aa75ed71a1/language-enpl
dc.description.referencesJudgment of the CJEU of 3 October 2019 on the case of Glawischnig Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=218621&pageIndex=0&doclang=IT&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=49929pl
dc.description.referencesJudgment of the CJEU of 22 June 2021 on the case of YouTube and Cyando. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0682pl
dc.description.referencesJudgment of the CJEU of 4 July 2023 on the case of Meta Platforms Ireland v. Bundeskartellamt. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=F3DD0CA874FF40844471F2F6AC22FD50text=&docid=275125&pageIndex=0&doclang=IT&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=97875pl
dc.description.referencesJudgment of the US Supreme Court of 5 June 2022 on the case of Trump v. Twitter. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cand-3_21-cv-08378/contextpl
dc.description.referencesJudgment of the US Supreme Court of 18 May 2023 on the case of Gonzalez v. Google no. 21–1333. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21–1333_6j7a.pdfpl
dc.description.referencesJudgment of the US Supreme Court of 1 July 2024 on the case of Moody, Attorney General of Florida, et al. v. Netchoice, LLC, DBA Netchoice, et al., no. 22–277. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22–277_d18f.pdfpl
dc.description.referencesLatour, B. (1988). The politics of explanation: An alternative. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 155–176). Sage.pl
dc.description.referencesManganelli, A. (2023). Piattaforme digitali e social network fra pluralità degli ordinamenti, pluralismo informatico e potere di mercato. Giurisprudenza Costituzionale, 2, 883–904.pl
dc.description.referencesMantovani, E. (2024, 18 July). Piattaforme digitali: l’attività di selezione dei contenuti è protected speech. La Corte Suprema USA limita gli interventi di regolazione statale nel settore digitale. Diritti Comparati. https://www.diritticomparati.it/piattaforme-digitali-lattivita-di-selezione-dei-contenuti-e-protected-speech-la-corte-suprema-usa-limita-gli-interventi-di-regolazione-statale-nel-settore-digitale/pl
dc.description.referencesMonti, M. (2019, 15 October). La corte di giustizia, la direttiva e-commerce e il controllo contenutistico online: le implicazioni della decisione C 18–18 sul discorso pubblico online e sul ruolo di Facebook. MediaLaws. https://www.medialaws.eu/la-corte-di-giustizia-la-direttiva-e-commerce-e-il-controllo-contenutistico-online-le-implicazioni-della-decisione-c-18–18-sul-discorso-pubblico-online-e-sul-ruolo-di-facebook/pl
dc.description.referencesO’Neil, C. (2017). Armi di distruzione matematica. Come i Big Data aumentano la disuguaglianza e minacciano la democrazia. Bompiani.pl
dc.description.referencesOrefice, M. (2018). I Big Data e gli effetti su privacy, trasparenza e iniziativa economica. Aracne.pl
dc.description.referencesOrrù, E. (2021). Verso un nuovo Panottico? La sorveglianza digitale. In T. Casadei & S. Pietropaoli (Eds.), Diritto e tecnologie informatiche. Questioni di informatica giuridica, prospettive istituzionali, sfide sociali (pp. 203–216). Wolters Kluwer.pl
dc.description.referencesPalazzani, L. (2020). Tecnologie dell’informazione e intelligenza artificiale. Studium.pl
dc.description.referencesPariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.pl
dc.description.referencesPasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press.pl
dc.description.referencesPerri, P. (2020). Sorveglianza elettronica, diritti fondamentali ed evoluzione tecnologica. Giuffrè.pl
dc.description.referencesPollicino, O. (2023). Di cosa parliamo quando parliamo di costituzionalismo digitale? Quaderni costituzionali, 3, 569–594.pl
dc.description.referencesRifkin, J. (2001). L’era dell’accesso. La rivoluzione della new economy. Mondadori.pl
dc.description.referencesRodotà, S. (2012). Il diritto di avere diritti. Laterza.pl
dc.description.referencesRodotà, S. (2014). Il mondo nella rete: quali i diritti, quali i vincoli. Laterza.pl
dc.description.referencesSartor, G. (2022). L’informatica giuridica e le tecnologie dell’informazione. Giappichelli.pl
dc.description.referencesStradella, E. (2020). Stereotipi e discriminazioni: dall’intelligenza umana all’intelligenza artificiale. Consulta Online, 1–10. https://giurcost.org/contents/giurcost//LIBERAMICORUM/stradella_scrittiCostanzo.pdfpl
dc.description.referencesSunstein, C. R. (2017). #republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.pl
dc.description.referencesTalia, D. (2018). La società calcolabile e i big data. Algoritmi e persone nel mondo digitale. Feltrinelli.pl
dc.description.referencesThurman, N. (2011). Making ‘The daily me’: Technology, economics and habit in the mainstream assimilation of personalized news. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 12(4), 395–415.pl
dc.description.referencesThurman, N., & Schifferes, S. (2012). The future of personalization at news websites: Lessons from a longitudinal study. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 775–790.pl
dc.description.referencesZambonelli, F. (2020). Algocrazia. Il governo degli algoritmi e dell’intelligenza artificiale. Scienza Express.pl
dc.description.referencesZiccardi, G. (2019). Tecnologie per il potere. Come usare i social network in politica. Raffaello Cortina.pl
dc.description.referencesZuboff, S. (2019). Il capitalismo della sorveglianza. Il futuro dell’umanità nell’era dei nuovi poteri. Luiss University Press.pl
dc.identifier.eissn2719-9452-
dc.description.volume31pl
dc.description.number1pl
dc.description.firstpage27pl
dc.description.lastpage41pl
dc.identifier.citation2Białostockie Studia Prawniczepl
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-7519-9016-
Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 2026, Vol. 31 nr 1

Pliki w tej pozycji:
Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
BSP_31_1_A_Maceratini_The_Digital_Agora.pdf174,99 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


Pozycja ta dostępna jest na podstawie licencji Licencja Creative Commons CCL Creative Commons