POLITICAL BEHAVIOR AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATION: CHALLENGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIGITAL POLITICAL TECHNOLOGIES
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2026.100.1.140-152
Abstract
The study explores the broad conceptual dimension of the prospects for digital political governance based on the democratic expression of will by Internet users. In this context, attention is paid to the virtualization of political demands and interests, which requires democratic political institutions to develop mechanisms for verifying “genuine” and “non-genuine” needs and claims of citizens and political communities. The mechanisms of digital political campaigns that utilize access to Internet technologies and social media platforms within political-technological strategies are identified. The study examines how Internet users are influenced by content that appears more organic and peer-endorsed than overt political advertising.
The ability of digital political campaigns to bypass traditional “gatekeepers” and reach niche audiences through personalized political messaging is revealed. The specificity of the increasing political-technological impact of targeted political advertising on behavior and representation is demonstrated. It is established that targeted advertising can take various forms, including short videos, banners, or direct messages, aimed at maximizing engagement while often neglecting individual rights, thereby deepening digital inequality. It is argued that voters tend to perceive such messages as specifically tailored to them, which increases the likelihood of persuasion.
The significance of digital political actors’ use of trust and outreach potential to influence followers is analyzed. The study highlights the enhanced persuasive effect of personalized (targeted) political-technological messages across various digital touchpoints. It is substantiated that digital political behavior increasingly becomes an act of virtual self-expression within the thematic space of the digital political world.
Keywords
Full Text:
>PDF (Українська)
References
Bruns, A., Burgess, J. (2012) Researching news discussion on Twitter: New methodologies. Journalism Studies.. 13(5-6). 801-814. URL:https://snurb.info/files/2012/Researching%20News%20Discussion%20on%20Twitter.pdf.
Castells, M. (2012) Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. Polity Press. URL:https://archive.org/details/networksofoutrag0000cast_e9p8
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Tinkler, J. (2006) Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press,. ISBN-13: 978-0199547005. 304. Bossner F. R., Schneider V. Private Governance of Social Media. A Relational Analysis of Hate-Speech Regulation in Germany. URL:https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PaperDetails/41619
Digital Politics and Politics of the Digital. Mediators Jasmin Fitzpatrick Johannes Gutenberg Meryem Marzouki. URL:https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/SectionDetails/769
Big Data, (New) Public Management, and Regulation Through Intermediaries. European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR).URL: https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PanelDetails/8131
Kaňuchová, T. How TikTok Hijacks Politics, Explained by Leading Researcher Josef Šlerka. URL:https://vsquare.org/social-media-china-usa-tiktok-algorithm-disinformation-czech-josef-slerka-interview/
Online Political Advertising and Microtargeting: The Latest Legal, Ethical, Political and Technological Evolutions. Webinar Series Report. 15 and 18 June (2020). URL:https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/online-political-advertising-and-microtargeting-latest-legal-ethical
Haff, P. K. (2014) Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules. The Anthropocene Review. 1(2). 126-136. URL:https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614530575.
Bossner, F. R., Schneider V. Private Governance of Social Media. A Relational Analysis of Hate-Speech Regulation in Germany. URL:https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PaperDetails/41619
Ding, Y., Ansel, J., Veeramachaneni, K., Shen, X., O'Reilly, U.-M., Amarasinghe, S. (2015) Autotuning algorithmic choice for input sensitivity. ACM SIGPLAN. Volume 50. Issue 603. 379–390. URL:https://doi.org/10.1145/2813885.2737969.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005) The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage Publications, University of Twente, Netherlands. URL:https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-deepening-divide/book226556.
Kampen, J. K., Snijkers, K. (2003) E-Democracy: A Critical Evaluation of the Ultimate E-Dream. In: Social Science Computer Review.. Volume 21, Issue 4. URL:https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303256095.
Piñeiro-Otero, T., Martínez-Rolán, X. (2020) Understanding digital politics-principles and actions Para comprender la política digital -principios y acciones. Vivat Academia. 152. 19-48.
Small, T. A. (2025) Digital integration in political advertising: Insights from expenditures in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian elections. Parliamentary Affairs. gsaf053. URL:https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsaf053.
Dommett’s, K. How is digital technology affecting democracy? URL:https://sheffield.ac.uk/spir/people/academic/kate-dommett/digital-technology-democracy
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The editorial board does not always share the position of the authors. The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the material presented.
All rights reserved.
© Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 2026






