In this digital age, questions of who speaks, who decides, and who benefits have become central to understanding how technology reshapes democracy. Digital activism has redefined participation, transforming communication and civic power through Artificial Intelligence or AI. In the context of this discussion, it will be argued that AI will continue to expand accessibility and visibility in civic life while simultaneously reproducing inequality through algorithmic control and surveillance. Drawing on Lukes’ (1974) theory of visible and hidden power and Lefebvre’s (1968) concept of the right to the city, this analysis will demonstrate that digital platforms serve as new democratic infrastructures where inclusion and exclusion are continually negotiated. By comparing examples from London and Bangkok, the discussion will demonstrate how AI-driven activism empowers citizens in open societies but can constrain them in monitored ones, thereby revealing the uneven geography of digital power.
Artificial Intelligence and the Complex Structure of Digital Participation
To begin with, AI technologies have multiplied the affordances of activism within the possibilities for action that technology offers to users. Through automation, translation, and data analysis, AI will continue to lower the cost and increase the speed of mobilisation, enabling people to connect across distances and languages. Captioning, speech-to-text, and live-streaming features have made activism more inclusive, ensuring that individuals with disabilities or linguistic barriers can participate in civic discussions (UNESCO, 2021).
This way, digital platforms operate as new forms of democratic infrastructure, virtual extensions of public space where people can assemble, debate, and claim visibility. The Black Lives Matter movement illustrates what Bennett and Segerberg (2013) describe as “connective action”, a decentralised model of mobilisation where individuals participate through sharing personalised content rather than following institutional hierarchies. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, mutual-aid networks in London used Facebook’s AI recommendation tools to connect volunteers with vulnerable neighbours, coordinating deliveries and emotional support. Together, these examples highlight how AI-driven participation will continue to foster accessibility, solidarity, and rapid community response in open civic contexts. However, if AI expands participation, does it guarantee that all voices are heard equally?
Nevertheless, the expansion of access does not necessarily guarantee equality of voice. As Lukes (1974) argues, power operates not only through visible decision-making but also through hidden forms of agenda-setting. Building on this perspective, it becomes evident that algorithmic systems exercise power invisibly by determining what content becomes visible and what remains unseen. Social-media platforms, therefore, act as modern gatekeepers that shape public discourse through algorithmic curation. On one hand, AI-driven visibility amplifies marginalised voices by elevating local campaigns to global attention. Hashtags such as “#MeToo” and “#EndSARS” exemplify how social movements can achieve worldwide recognition through algorithmic promotion (Freelon, McIlwain and Clark, 2018). On the other hand, these same systems are designed to maximise user engagement, often privileging sensational or polarising material (Zuboff, 2019). Consequently, participation becomes governed by commercial rather than democratic logics, transforming visibility into a digital commodity distributed unequally among users. Then when algorithms determine what is displayed, the question arises: who ultimately possesses power in this evolving digital landscape?
Besides, the empowering potential of AI is inseparable from its economic architecture. As Zuboff (2019) explains, the digital sphere operates under surveillance capitalism, a system that captures and monetises human behaviour as data. Tech giants such as Google, Amazon, Meta, and Apple control both communication channels and the algorithms that regulate visibility. In this architecture of digital power, users appear autonomous but function within systems that monetise their attention. In democratic societies such as London, AI-driven participation unfolds within legal frameworks that protect free expression. Nevertheless, it still depends on corporate algorithms designed for profit rather than equality. In contrast, in Bangkok, corporate and state control converge. While citizens use social-media platforms to mobilise and communicate, they also face pervasive surveillance. The Computer Crime Act allows government monitoring of digital dissent, and extensive CCTV and facial-recognition systems limit anonymity. As a result, the same AI tools that support participation in London also restrict it in Bangkok, revealing the dual nature of technological empowerment. Therefore, as digital platforms now influence how people assemble and express themselves, could digital space itself be considered a form of public space?
In fact, these contrasting contexts reveal how digital platforms are now equivalent to physical public spaces. Lefebvre’s (1968) concept of “the right to the city” or the right to participate in and shape urban life can now be applied to digital environments where access to platforms determines visibility and empowerment. In open democracies such as London, digital activism extends the principles of urban participation: citizens can livestream protests, crowdsource petitions, and monitor institutions through open-data systems. Thus, public space becomes hybrid, simultaneously physical and digital, strengthening democratic engagement. Conversely, in Bangkok, digital infrastructures reflect state control rather than open deliberation. Activists employ encrypted messaging apps and creative online tactics to claim visibility, yet they do so under continuous surveillance. In this case, the right to the city transforms into the right to digital space through a struggle to exist within algorithmic systems that can both expose and erase voices. This comparison of London and Bangkok highlights how AI is transforming both participation and the very concept of citizenship. Put simply, as increased visibility can provide empowerment or pose risks, the question remains: does AI serve as a force for liberation, or does it function as a means of control?
Consequently, AI-driven activism must be understood as a double-edged sword: a force of empowerment and restriction at once. The same algorithms that translate, summarise, and connect individuals also enable profiling, censorship, and manipulation. While London’s digital ecosystem supports participation under democratic safeguards, Bangkok’s tightly monitored environment demonstrates how similar technologies can silence dissent. In both scenarios, the primary challenge is to ensure visibility while maintaining safety. The issue of participation has shifted from securing the right to speak to balancing the right to be visible with the necessity of safeguarding individuals in public view. When participation results in the production of data, it is essential to consider the implications in how to treat such data as a commodity.
In addition to these social dynamics, AI also reshapes economic relations within the digital sphere. Under surveillance capitalism, participation itself becomes a product. Every online action like posting, sharing, or reacting feeds data back into the system. According to Zuboff (2019), this creates “cloud serfs”: users who sustain digital empires through their data labour. Even protest movements contribute to this economy by generating engagement metrics that enhance corporate profit. Consequently, empowerment and exploitation operate simultaneously as civic engagement intersects with commercial objectives, demonstrating the significant economic impacts arising from digital participation. As algorithmic infrastructures increasingly shape the future of participation, it is critical to consider how these systems can progress in an ethical manner while preserving democratic principles.
Despite these contradictions, the future of digital participation can still evolve ethically. To ensure this, citizens must cultivate critical digital literacy in an understanding of how algorithms influence visibility and perception. Therefore, in accordance with UNESCO’s (2021) recommendations, it is essential for governments and corporations to prioritise transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness in AI governance. Additionally, establishing connections between activism and the Sustainable Development Goals, and specifically within SDGs 4.7 on Education,11 for Sustainable Cities, 16 for Peace and Justice, and 17 on Partnerships, can effectively align local civic initiatives with comprehensive global justice frameworks.
Ultimately, the future of activism will largely depend on balancing empowerment with oversight, visibility with privacy, and innovation with appropriate regulation. Regardless of location, London or Bangkok, it is essential for citizens to advocate for ethical technological practices that prioritise societal well-being over the consolidation of power.
In conclusion, this discussion has shown that AI will continue to transform participation by expanding accessibility, accelerating communication, and amplifying voices, yet simultaneously embedding activism within complex structures of surveillance and economic control. The comparative analysis of London and Bangkok reveals that AI can serve both as a democratic enabler and as a mechanism of discipline. The enduring question of who speaks, who decides, and who benefits remains open, reminding us that technology itself is never neutral. The challenge for the coming decade is to ensure that AI strengthens the democratic promise of participation rather than reinforcing the architecture of inequality.
References
Bennett, W.L. and Segerberg, A. (2013) The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freelon, D., McIlwain, C.D. and Clark, M.D. (2018) ‘Beyond the hashtags: #Ferguson, #BlackLivesMatter, and the online struggle for offline justice’, International Journal of Communication, 12, pp. 1–22.
Lefebvre, H. (1968) Le Droit à la ville. Paris: Anthropos.
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
Tufekci, Z. (2017) Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven: Yale University Press.
UNESCO (2021) Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO.
Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. London: Profile Books.
Awad Dosso