ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS AND E-GOVERNMENT – A THEORETICAL DEBATE ON DEMOCRATIZATION, ETHICS, AND PRIVACY

Abstract

The advent of the Internet and following technological improvements in computer- mediated communication associated with Web 2.0 has created a new form of society consisted of networked people who could narrate their stories, experiences, thoughts in social networking sites, and reach a huge number of people, interact and communicate with them. Online social networks provide an interactive communication environment for the networked people where all individuals have their voices. The opportunities offered by technological developments has drawn attention of governments, and by structuring e- government, governments has begun providing services to their citizens and other stakeholders in digital mediums, and using the Web 2.0 tools to communicate and interact with them. Digitalizing government services means collecting, processing, and storing enormous amount of information; so this situation worries citizens about protection of privacy. In a networked society, it is expected that computer-mediated communication creates a liberal environment in which all opinions can be shared freely, citizen participation in government issues rise, and democratic values develop. The role played by the Internet and Web 2.0 platforms in democratization process, and governments’ attitudes towards speech and communication freedom in cyberspace have been topics of academic debates. In this study, after given brief information on Web 2.0 technologies, online social networks, e-government, and democracy, ethical and privacy concerns resulted from e-government services, democratic possibilities provided by the Internet and Web 2.0 technologies, and the relationship between e-government and democratization are examined theoretically

Keywords

• Social Networks
• E-Government
• Privacy
• Ethics
• Democratization

References

1. Alkemade, Floortje and Carolina Castaldi (2005), “Strategies for the Diffusion of
2. Innovations on Social Networks”, Computational Economics, Vol. 25, No.1-2, pp. 3-23. Bonsón, Enrique, Lourdes Torres, Sonia Royo, Francisco Flores (2012), “Local E
3. Government 2.0: Social Media and Corporate Transparency in Municipalities”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 123-132. Bouguettaya, Athman, Brahim Medjahed, Abdelmounaam Rezgui, Mourad Ouzzani, Xumin Liu, and Qi Yu (2004). “WebDG – A Platform for E-Government Web
4. Services”(in: Shan Wang, Katsumi Tanaka, Shıigeng Zhou, Tok Wang Ling, Jihong Guan, DongqingYang, Fabio Grandi, Eleni Mangina, Il.-Yeol Song, Heinrich C. Mayr – Eds., Conceptual Modeling for Advanced Application Domains / ER 2004 Workshops
5. CoMoGIS, CoMWIM, ECDM, CoMoA, DGOV, and eCOMO, Shanghai, China, November 8-12, 2004. Proceedings), Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 553-565.
6. Bratvold, David (2016), What is Crowdsourcing?, https://dailycrowdsource.com
7. /training/crowdsourcing/what-is-crowdsourcing, [Accessed 02.09.2016]
8. Brooks, Robert C. (1957), “‘Word-of-Mouth Advertising’ in Selling New Products", The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 154-161.

9. Carter, Lemuria and France Bélanger (2005), “The Utilization of E-Government Services:
10. Citizen Trust, Innovation and Acceptance Factors”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 5-25. Chiang, Yen-Sheng (2007), “Birds of Moderately Different Feathers: Bandwagon
11. Dynamics and the Threshold Heterogeneity of Network Neighbors”, The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 47-69. Coleman, James, Elihu Katz and Herbert Menzel (1957), “The Diffusion of an Innovation among Physicians”, Sociometry, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 253-270.
12. Coleman, James, Herbert Menzel and Elihu Katz (1959), “Social Processes in Physicians'
13. Adoption of a New Drug”, Journal of Chronic Diseases, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1-19. Crowdsourcing Week (2016), What is Crowdsourcing?, http://crowdsourcing week.com/what-is-crowdsourcing/, [Accessed 02.09.2016]
14. De George, Richard T. (1999), Business Ethics (5th Ed.), Upper Saddle River, New
15. Jersey: Prentice Hall. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos (2003), “The Digitization of Word-Of-Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms”, Management Science, Vol. 49, No. 10, pp. 1424.
16. Fischer, Eileen and A. Rebecca Reuber (2011), “Social Interaction via New Social Media:
17. (How) Can Interactions on Twitter Affect Effectual Thinking and Behavior?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1-18. Foth, Marcus (2006), “Sociocultural Animation”, (in: Stewart Marshall, Wallace Taylor, and Xinghuo Yu –Eds., Encyclopedia of Developing Regional Communities with
18. Information and Communication Technology), Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference (IGI Global), pp. 640-645. Freedom House (2016), Freedom in the World 2016, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2016.pdf, [Accessed 09.2016]
19. Godin, Seth (2001), Unleashing the Ideavirus: Stop Marketing At People Turn Your
20. Ideas into Epidemics by Helping Your Customers Do the Marketing for You, New York: Hyperion. Goldsmith, Russell (2002), Viral Marketing: Get Your Audience to Do Your Marketing for You, London: Pearson Education.
21. Hampton, Keith N. and Barry Wellman (1999), “Netville Online and Offline: Observing and Surveying a Wired Suburb”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 475
22. Haruvy, Ernan and Ashutosh Prasad (2001), “Optimal Freeware Quality in the Presence of Network Externalities: An Evolutionary Game Theoretical Approach”, Journal of
23. Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 231–48. Hastings, Hunter and Jeff Saperstein (2010), How Social Media Can Be Used to Dialogue with the Customer, com/publication/how-social-media-can-be-used-to-dialogue-with-the-customer/, Accessed 12.06.2016]
24. Hiller, Janine S. and France Bélanger (2001), “Privacy Strategies for Electronic
25. Government”, (in: Mark A. Anramson and Grady E. Means –Eds., IBM Endowment for the Business of Government / E-Government 2001), Lanham, Maryland: Rowland and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., pp. 162-198.
26. Inversini, Alessandro, and Lorenzo Masiero (2014), “Selling Rooms Online: The Use of
27. Social Media and Online Travel Agents”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol.26, No.2, pp. 272-292. Kaplan, Andrea M. and Michael Haenlein (2010), “Users of the World, Unite The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media”, Business Horizons, Vol.53, No.1, pp. 68.
28. Katz, Elihu and Paul Felix Lazarsfeld, (1955), Personal Influence: The Part Played by
29. People in the Flow of Mass Communications, New York: The Free Press. Kozinets, Robert V. (2002), “The Field behind the Screen: Using Netnography for
30. Marketing Research in Online Communities," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 61-73. Kreiss, Daniel (2015), “The Problem of Citizens: E-Democracy for Actually Existing
31. Democracy”, Social Media + Society, July-December 2015, pp. 1-11.
32. Layne, Karen and Jungwoo Lee (2001), “Developing fully functional E-government: A
33. Four Stage Model”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 122-136. Li, Charlene and Josh Bernoff (2009), Marketing in the Groundswell, Boston, MA:
34. Harvard Business School Press. McConnell, Ben and Jackie Huba (2007), Citizen Marketers: When People are the Message, Chicago, IL: Kaplan Publishing. http://iveybusinessjournal.