A great time to innovate democracy, while the technology is in place.

About twenty years ago, just after turning eighteen, I tried to follow politics because I cared about living in a fair society. I wanted everyone to have food, healthcare, safety, education — the basics any decent person wishes for others. But politics felt toxic: shouting, accusations, and no real progress. Even the word began to feel heavy.

I know I’m not alone; many people feel frustrated or disconnected. Yet politics should be noble — collaboration, empathy, coexistence.

So I’m writing this to explore how technology and digital design might help us rebuild that connection and make democracy feel human again.

The bad side of politics and technology

It’s almost impossible to separate politics from technology today. Every major shift in communication has reshaped how we organise, argue, and imagine our future. New tools always begin as freedom — more voices, more access, more possibility — but over time they start shaping us in ways we barely notice. Social media felt like a new democracy at first, until algorithms pushed us into echo chambers, doom scrolling and trained us to react instead of reflect. Technology can amplify empathy or anger, truth or distortion. It depends on how we design it. If we build tools that reward curiosity over conflict, politics could start to feel human again.

Propaganda isn’t new, but technology has made it faster, more precise, and far more personal. In the past, newspapers and radio spread broad, one-size-fits-all messages. Today, algorithms whisper tailored narratives to each of us. The Cambridge Analytica scandal highlighted how personal data can influence political persuasion, but similar patterns have also been observed in Europe. Ahead of the 2024 EU elections, researchers uncovered coordinated disinformation networks operating across France, Germany, and Italy, using fake accounts to quietly influence voter perception. This is the new propaganda: subtle, targeted, and often unnoticed — not designed to inform us, but to keep us engaged and predictable.

If we want more harmonious communities, we must rebuild respect, trust, and understanding. This isn’t just about better apps — it’s about better values. A healthy digital political system rests on a few core principles: a thirst for truth over partisanship; transparency by default in decisions and algorithms; effectiveness in solving real problems; equal access to voice regardless of power; and truth before speed, prioritising accuracy over virality. It also requires agility, allowing nuanced positions; holism, showing how issues connect; simplicity, making participation approachable; and decentralised ownership to prevent concentrated control. These values must guide the technology we design next.

Designing a Political Platform That Supports Equilibrium

A fictional glimpse of this future appears in N. A. Turner’s short story “The Democr App.” In it, society runs on constant digital referendums, with citizens voting directly on everything from climate policy to economic reform. Turner captures the tension at the heart of radical digital democracy through one of his characters:

Mouse87 still wondered if the majority could decide what is true and just for the entire nation. Could the people govern themselves? He believed they could. He had to. It was part of his design… to unite people, to let democracy shine in its truest form. But he made one mistake. Mouse87 wanted people to become equal, but no two persons are the same, let alone a whole nation.

This fictional moment reveals a real-world challenge: if technology is going to serve democracy, it must be built for equilibrium, not engagement — helping people understand before they react, listen before they judge, and collaborate before they divide.

Imagine a platform where political discussion doesn’t lead to outrage or exhaustion, but to clarity. Instead of a chaotic feed, citizens move through a guided process that adds context, shows diverse perspectives, and explains how each decision touches real life. Every issue is presented holistically: the problem, public feelings, solutions, supporters, opposers, risks, and consequences. The platform wouldn’t punish disagreement; it would encourage informed disagreement.

The biggest risk to be addressed is that people are emotional thinkers. We rely on shortcuts, familiar ideas, and content that feels good. That makes building a political platform for understanding — not reaction — uniquely challenging. Echo chambers can quietly return. Misinformation spreads fast. Power can be centralised. People get overwhelmed or tune out. Privacy must be protected. Algorithms can inherit cultural bias. And cynicism can make citizens feel their participation doesn’t matter. These risks aren’t technical — they’re human. The goal isn’t perfection but transparency, safety, and adaptability, designing for how people actually think while gently helping them grow toward deeper, fairer public understanding.

Proposal

I propose to build a digital democratic platform designed for civic matters. A space where citizens explore issues through context, clarity, and diverse perspectives. The proposed solution is inspired by a collection of technologies and methodologies that already exist in the market.

Modernising the democratic process

Modern democracies could learn from how product teams build great systems: through continuous cycles of learning, testing, and improvement. In tech, decisions aren’t final — they’re iterated. After research, prototyping, and alignment, products launch, are monitored, refined, and improved again.

Our political systems rarely work this way. Voting is treated as the end of the process, not the beginning of a learning loop. Imagine instead a democratic cycle that mirrors product development: collect facts, collect people’s feelings, ideate, vote, enforce and monitor, then learn and iterate. Decisions would become living processes, shaped by data, experience, and citizen feedback.

This concept is not only mine to share; the minister of the digital affairs of Taiwan, Audrey Tang, explained with some major wins in his announcement.

https://medium.com/media/378431ed5045273f32d50ae23e346c34/href

Modernising democratic roles

Modernising democracy also means modernising our roles within it. A healthier system depends on shared participation, not hierarchy

• Citizens — Stay curious, seek holistic truth, and engage respectfully with the community. Understanding comes before opinion.
• Representatives & Experts — Study issues deeply, gather reliable evidence, and communicate clearly. Their role is to guide, not rule.
• Journalists & Communicators — Go beyond reporting outcomes. Explain processes, challenge assumptions, and make complex information accessible and accurate.
• Moderators & Facilitators — Ensure discussions remain constructive, inclusive, and fact-based. Conversations need care, not control

Getting inspired by existing tools

This proposal isn’t built from scratch; it stands on the shoulders of platforms already pushing civic understanding forward. Across the world, tools from deliberation to fact-checking show how technology can reduce bias, reveal context, and support healthier public dialogue. Below are the key inspirations:

https://medium.com/media/287411905cf22ca0843b2f5dbdd50386/href

Platform Features

Civilian Contributions

This is the heart of the platform — the civilian contributions, or what we usually call posts. Every user can contribute something meaningful: an idea, a problem, an opinion, a question, or even an opportunity for improvement. Contributions can be connected to existing topics or open entirely new ones.

But here, it’s not just what you say that matters — it’s how you say it.
The platform’s goal is to guide users toward expressing ideas in a fair, respectful, and inclusive way, helping people frame their thoughts with clarity and empathy. The tone should promote understanding, not hostility.

When creating a post, the system gently assists the user in identifying who might be affected — both positively and negatively — and what risks or consequences the idea might carry. This helps transform a simple complaint or reaction into a civic contribution — a statement grounded in awareness and responsibility.

Example:

• Initial Post:
  “It was about time for an accident. Our roads suck!”
• Guided Contribution:
  “After the accident last week on James Bond Street, I’ve noticed how poor visibility is around that area. I completely understand the need to illuminate archaeological monuments beautifully, but perhaps we can adjust the lighting design to make the road safer for drivers and pedestrians.”

Engaging With Contributions

Once a post is shared, the conversation truly begins. Engagement on this platform isn’t about collecting likes — it’s about building knowledge together. Users can interact with a post by adding further research, supporting documents, related ideas, or personal experiences that enrich the discussion. Reactions are not noise; they are part of the learning process. Every contribution adds a layer of understanding to the original idea.

As discussions grow, the system detects when a post gains meaningful traction — not through volume, but through depth, balance, and constructive participation.

For example, imagine the earlier post about the James Bond Street accident. As others contribute — a local architect sharing a visibility report, a cyclist uploading a nighttime video, a city planner linking to safety regulations — the post evolves into a valuable public thread. The system may then elevate it to the top of the #Transportation section, where local authorities, journalists, or experts can see it easily.

Contributing to engagements becomes a path to collaboration, connecting citizens, experts, and decision-makers around the same living issue.

Feedback, Evaluation, and Reporting Layer

Every contribution can be evaluated by the community through a structured feedback model. Instead of quick reactions, users can mark a post as helpful, insightful, unclear, or biased. They can also add short notes explaining why — offering specific, respectful observations rather than emotional responses.

Take the example of the James Bond Street accident post. As the discussion grows, others might respond like this:

• “Helpful — this identifies a recurring safety issue and offers context.”
• “Unclear — it’s not clear who manages street lighting in that zone; can you clarify?”
• “Insightful — linking the lighting to archaeological site preservation adds an interesting angle.”

This structured feedback system evaluates quality, not popularity. Thoughtful, diverse responses elevate a post; unclear ones prompt clarification or community notes. Citizens can flag misinformation or harm, triggering contextual reviews rather than punishment. Over time, this two-way process teaches users to communicate better and helps the platform highlight substance over outrage.

Enhanced Community Notes

Community Notes has proven that context builds trust. When users add explanations instead of blunt “misleading” labels, people are more likely to believe the correction and share less misinformation. A study published by Oxford University Press found that contextual notes were significantly more trusted than standard misinformation flags.

A University of California, San Diego analysis confirmed that Community Notes were highly accurate and credible, especially for vaccine-related posts. Similarly, research on arXiv reported that when a note is attached to a misleading post, engagement drops sharply — reposts by ~45% and likes by ~43%.

Still, the model struggles with speed, diversity, and visibility.
Many viral posts never receive notes in time, and a small group of contributors writes the majority. This pattern was noted in a large-scale data transparency report and in follow-up analyses on Wikipedia.

Because the platform isn’t optimised for speed or emotional reactions, each post is first shared with a segment of users who have expertise in that topic. This allows knowledgeable contributors to add early context and Community Notes. If the post begins gaining traction, a community review mode activates, inviting a wider and more diverse group of users to contribute additional context before the content spreads further.

All notes appear directly within the post, with the system’s LLM providing clear, neutral summaries.

Algorithm for Understanding

Most digital platforms today are built around one metric — engagement. Their algorithms are designed to maximise emotion, outrage, and addictive scrolling, because the longer we stay online, the more ads we see, and the more profitable the system becomes.

Our platform must take the opposite path. Instead of optimising for emotion, it optimises for understanding. Instead of amplifying what divides, it surfaces what connects.

The algorithm’s purpose is to guide comprehension. It promotes content that helps people see the full picture, not just the side that fits their bias.

Algorithm key principles:

1. Relevance First
Content is served to the people who can meaningfully enrich it: citizens directly affected, experts with relevant insight, and communities equipped to help. This creates deeper engagement, allowing posts to gather context, sources, impacts, and risks — rather than shallow reactions or fragments.

2. Exposure to Multiple Viewpoints
The system deliberately broadens perspectives. It resurfaces skipped materials, introduces contrasting views, and reduces the blind spots that create echo chambers.

3. Promote Thoughtful contributions
Thoughtful contributions are highlighted above heated or repetitive ones, shifting the culture from reaction to reflection. This slows the rush toward instant opinions and encourages users to pause, explore context, and consider alternative viewpoints before responding.

Join Discussion Rooms

When a topic gains traction and enough information is gathered, it can evolve into a virtual discussion room — an open dialogue space where citizens, experts, and representatives come together to exchange ideas in real time.

Because these discussions are hosted within the platform, all previously gathered data helps structure the meeting through dedicated moderator tools. Insights generated during the session are then fed back into the platform, enriching the topic’s knowledge base and improving the ongoing civic process.

Each session is moderated by a certified facilitator from the platform’s community, whose role is to ensure inclusivity, respect, and focus. After the discussion ends, participants can rate the moderator’s fairness and clarity, creating a transparent feedback loop that strengthens future sessions.

Open Source and Transparency

At the foundation of this platform lies a commitment to transparency. Every major component — from the algorithm that ranks posts to the data that informs decisions — should be open source and publicly auditable. People must be able to see how information moves, how visibility is determined, and how their contributions are valued.

By keeping the code, funding sources, and moderation logic open, the platform earns trust through visibility, not promises. Just as citizens can participate in discussions, they can also participate in improving the system itself — submitting code, suggesting fixes, or analysing biases in real time.

Openness makes corruption harder and collaboration easier. It turns the system into a public good, owned and shaped by the very people it serves.

And importantly, as highlighted by the Association Redefine, open source creates long-term resilience. Even if a project shuts down, communities can continue developing and maintaining the tools because the code belongs to everyone. Investments don’t vanish — they evolve into a living civic ecosystem that outlives any single platform

Visualising Data for Clarity

A civic platform can generate thousands of posts, threads, and interactions. To make this complexity understandable, we need simple, smart visualisations that reveal the shape of the conversation at a glance. These visuals help each person see where they stand, how the community thinks, and how decisions evolve.

We focus on five key visual tools:

1. Profile Map —helps you understand how you participate in the civic space.
2. Press Landscape — compares how different media sources frame the same issue.
3. Community Landscape — clusters related discussions to reveal priorities and tensions.
4. Debate Pathways — maps the flow of arguments from context to risks.
5. Voting Impact Map — shows how different votes influence outcomes and each other.

Profile Map

Inspired by the philosophy behind Readocracy, it doesn’t measure popularity; it measures depth, diversity, and quality of your engagement.

Your Profile Map reflects things like:

• the topics you explore
• the perspectives you’ve engaged with
• the clarity and helpfulness of your contributions
• your willingness to consider alternative views

Over time, the Profile Map becomes a visual record of your learning journey — showing how your understanding evolves and where your strengths or blind spots may lie

Press Landscape Map

Inspired by AllSides and Improve the News, the Press Landscape Map shows how different media outlets frame the same issue. Instead of one narrative, you see a simple side-by-side comparison: what each source highlights, ignores, or emphasises emotionally.

A slider lets you move between left, centre, and right perspectives, revealing coverage gaps and bias patterns instantly. The goal isn’t to tell you what to believe, but to help you see the full information spectrum so you can form your own, well-rounded view.

Community Landscape

Inspired by Polis, the Community Landscape shows where people agree, where they diverge, and where new ideas are emerging. Instead of a chaotic comment feed, opinions are grouped into clusters, making patterns visible at a glance.

You can instantly see:

• areas of broad consensus
• viewpoints gaining traction
• minority positions that add nuance
• topics that need more voices or clarity

Debate Pathways

Inspired by Kialo, Debate Pathways turns discussions into clear, structured argument maps. Instead of scrolling through emotional, unstructured comments, you follow a simple, logical flow: Context, Problem, Proposed Solution, Supporting Arguments, Counterarguments, Risks and Trade-offs

Each point branches visually, so you can explore an idea from multiple angles without getting lost. This structure helps users see why people disagree, where the strongest reasoning sits, and what blind spots remain.

Voting Impact Map

The Voting Impact Map shows how each contribution and engagement shapes real outcomes. Instead of pressing a button blindly, you can see the Immediate effects of each choice and who is positively or negatively affected. You can also spot how this decision connects to other issues and map Potential long-term consequences

Visually, it works like a branching diagram: each voting option expands into predicted impacts, trade-offs, and ripple effects across related topics. This helps citizens understand not only what they are voting for, but what it leads to.

The goal is to make voting transparent, informed, and interconnected — turning every choice into a conscious, educated action rather than a guess in the dark.

Closing

Over the past decade, we have watched technology reshape politics in ways both inspiring and alarming. Digital platforms have given millions of people a voice, but they have also enabled manipulation, polarisation, and propaganda at a scale that was once unimaginable. Elections, public opinion, and social movements are now influenced not just by policies and ideas, but by algorithms, recommendation feeds, and data-driven emotional triggers.

If democracy is to survive and evolve, it must adapt to this new reality. And to do that, we must ask a deeper question:

What makes democracy strong in the first place?

The answer is not just voting, nor simply participating. The answer is truth-seeking.

Democracy is only as strong as the willingness of people to go to the bottom of the “truth”.

If citizens don’t question assumptions, investigate claims, or look beyond the most entertaining narrative, democracy becomes vulnerable — not because people lack intelligence, but because human nature prefers comfort to complexity and there are not plenty of means to do so.

I am proposing a holistic platform that can support civilians to stay active, informed and respectful to their community.

Thank you for reading!
I’d love to connect and hear your views on how we can create the best possible experience for a platform like this. Your perspective matters. LinkedIn

And if you want to support more writing like this, feel free to buy me a coffee ☕🙂

---

Building a digital democratic platform designed for civic matters was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.