Keywords
justice
AI
artificial
intelligence
equality
digital inequality
constitution
How to Cite
Abstract
This article explores how artificial intelligence and data-driven platforms are reshaping the conditions of democratic citizenship by producing new forms of digital inequality. Drawing on critical theory, developmental psychology, media studies and constitutional law, the article develops an integrated framework combining Nancy Fraser’s theory of participatory justice, García Coll et al.’s ecological model of youth development and Valkenburg et al.’s social compensation theory. Empirically, it engages with survey data on perceived discrimination and youth digital skills, as well as emblematic case studies such as XLAW, Prometea and Cambridge Analytica. Normatively, it situates these developments within a broader project of digital constitutionalism, focusing on informational self-determination, substantive equality and democratic participation. The analysis concludes that addressing digital inequalities requires not only technical and regulatory fixes (GDPR, DSA, AI Act), but also a constitutional re-embedding of AI and platform power within frameworks of transparency, contestability and participatory governance.
References
ALEXY, R. A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
ANANNY, M.; CRAWFORD, K. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, v. 20, p. 973–989, 2018.
ANGWIN, J.; LARSON, J.; MATTU, S.; KIRCHNER, L. Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica, 2016.
BALKIN, J. M. Old-school/new-school speech regulation. Harvard Law Review, v. 127, p. 1190–1210, 2014.
BENJAMIN, R. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2019.
BIETTI, E. From ethics washing to ethics bashing: A view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, p. 29–41, 2020.
BODIN, J. Artificial intelligence and democratic legitimacy. AI & Society, v. 36, p. 1–12, 2021.
BRADFORD, A. The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
CELESTE, E. Digital constitutionalism: A new systematic theorisation. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, v. 33, p. 76–99, 2019.
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Art. 8.
CHESNEY, R.; CITRON, D. Deep fakes. California Law Review, v. 107, p. 1753–1819, 2019.
CITRON, D. K.; PASQUALE, F. The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, v. 89, p. 1–33, 2014.
COHEN, J. E. Between truth and power: The legal constructions of informational capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
CRAMER, F. What is ‘post-digital’? APRJA, v. 3, 2015.
CREAN, M. Affective injustice and the politics of empathy. Critical Horizons, v. 22, p. 1–17, 2021.
CRUICKSHANK, J. Data gaps and social exclusion. Big Data & Society, 2021.
CZERNIEWICZ, L. Inequality as higher education goes online. Postdigital Science and Education, v. 5, p. 1–15, 2023.
DE CONINCK, D.; VISSENBERG, J.; JORIS, W.; D’HAENENS, L. Perceived ethnic discrimination and digital inequalities among children and young people: Studying the multidimensional concepts of digital skills and digital knowledge. Information, Communication & Society, v. 27, p. 350–370, 2024.
DE GREGORIO, G. Constitutional governance of online platforms. Common Market Law Review, v. 58, p. 485–512, 2021.
DE GREGORIO, G.; DUNN, P. The Digital Services Act and systemic risks. Common Market Law Review, v. 60, p. 1027–1056, 2023.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Brussels, 2019.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). COM(2021) 206 final, Brussels, 21 April 2021.
EUROPEAN UNION. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation). OJ L 119, 4 May 2016.
EUROPEAN UNION. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act). OJ L 277, 27 October 2022.
EUBANKS, V. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2018.
EYNO N, R. AI and datafication of inequality. Learning, Media and Technology, v. 47, p. 1–14, 2022.
FERRAJOLI, L. Principia iuris. Vol. II. Rome–Bari: Laterza, 2007.
FLORIDI, L.; COWLS, J.; KING, T. C.; TADDEO, M. How to design AI for social good: Seven essential factors. Science and Engineering Ethics, v. 24, p. 689–709, 2018.
FRASER, N. Reframing justice in a globalizing world. In: FRASER, N. Scales of justice. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.
GALETTA, D. U.; CORVALAN, J. G. Algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Transparency and accountability. Revista General de Derecho Administrativo, v. 50, 2019.
GARCÍA COLL, C. et al. An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, v. 67, p. 1891–1914, 1996.
GILLESPIE, T. Custodians of the Internet. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018.
HELLER, N. Is artificial intelligence compatible with democratic government? The New Yorker, 2022.
HILDEBRANDT, M. Law as computation in the algorithmic state. University of Toronto Law Journal, v. 68 (Suppl. 1), p. 1–27, 2018.
KROLL, J. A. et al. Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, v. 165, p. 633–705, 2017.
KUHN, S. D.; CZERNIEWICZ, L.; DEACON, A.; WALJI, S. Understanding digital inequality: A theoretical kaleidoscope. Postdigital Science and Education, v. 5, 2023.
LESSIG, L. Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
LYON, D. Surveillance society. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2001.
MANES, V. Predictive policing e principio di eguaglianza. Questione Giustizia, v. 2, 2020.
MASCHERONI, G.; CINO, D.; MIKUŠKA, J.; SMAHEL, D. Explaining inequalities in vulnerable children’s digital skills. New Media & Society, v. 24, 2022.
NOBLE, S. U. Algorithms of oppression. New York: New York University Press, 2018.
NUSSBAUM, M. C. Creating capabilities. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 2011.
O’NEIL, C. Weapons of math destruction. New York: Crown, 2016.
PASQUALE, F. The black box society. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 2015.
PIPARO, C., Criminal liability models and criminal participation in the digital environment: a modern challenge in the perspective of Italian constitutionalism. Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law, Novi Sad, p. 1357-1378, 2023.
PIPARO, C., BLAZEK, R. Criminal algorithms and their punishment in modern constitutionalism, Bratislava Law Review, Bratislava, p. 200-222, 2024.
PIPARO, C. La controvertida relación entre la inteligencia artificial y la democracia representativa. Nuovi autoritarismi e democrazie, 6, 1, Milano, 2024.
PIPARO, C. Machina delinquere potest? (ph.D. thesis). University of Udine: Udine, p. 1-180, 2025.
POHLE, J.; THIEL, T. Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, v. 9, 2020.
ROUVROY, A.; BERNS, T. Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation. Réseaux, v. 177, 2013.
SEN, A. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
SUNSTEIN, C. R. #Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.
TEUBNER, G. Constitutional fragments. Frankfurt: Global Law Press, 2012.
TUFEKCI, Z. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google. Colorado Technology Law Journal, v. 13, p. 203–218, 2015.
VAN DIJCK, J.; POELL, T.; DE WAAL, M. The platform society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
VALKENBURG, P. M.; PETER, J.; SCHOUTEN, A. P. Friend networking sites and adolescents’ well-being. CyberPsychology & Behavior, v. 9, 2006.
ZUBOFF, S. The age of surveillance capitalism. London: Profile Books, 2019.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Lex Humana (ISSN 2175-0947)