A new government report on young people and power structures in Norway, NOU 2011: 20 – Ungdom, makt og medvirkning, has just been sent out for comments, and our department administration asked us Digital Culture people to take a look at the sections on digital citizenship and privacy in digital media. Petter Bae Brandtzæg was on the committee, and I imagine he had a fair bit to do with these sections. Skimming through it I haven’t seen anything very shocking, but there are some useful stats here and there. For instance, if you were wondering how often young (and not-so-young) Norwegians post about politics on Facebook, here’s the answer:

How often do you take part in interest groups or activism on Facebook? Do you often write comments about politics on Facebook? Do you often link to political material on Facebook?

The report discusses a number of Norwegian cases of online activism – the protests against the expulsion of Marie Amelie, against the power lines in Hardanger or the 50,000 strong boycott of Coca Cola that caused the company to cut off its cooperation with the father of the presumed murderer of the Norwegian student Martine in the UK. Of course, the rose parades after July 22 are also mentioned. The paradox of teaching children to always hide their name and personal information online, and then expecting them to take part in public, political debate, is also mentioned. The committee recommends that digital citizenship be made part of the curriculum in schools (they propose a whole new subject called democracy in an earlier chapter, similar to the British subject Citizenship), and that more research is done on youth and digital citizenship.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Linn

    I can’t get over how much harder it is to openly participate in politics after I got a corporate job. This is an overly discussed issue – but it rang it’s bells again when I saw this. I do like to consider myself a very politically engaged person, but more often than not I don’t participate publicly, and as we all know by now, Facebook is a public sphere (ehm …).
    I have no idea what’s in the curriculum for teenagers these days, but I would love there to be subjects on digitial citizenship and ethics. Come to think of it, I wouldn’t mind teaching that class! I do believe that teenagers are very digitally social savvy, but I still think there’s a lot that can be taught. Maybe not taught, but thought seeds planted for further contemplation, help them to think a little critically about things such as Facebook not being a public space and their digital identity rights. I would love to talk to teenagers about these things!

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.