This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Berger, P. L. (2004). Invitation to sociology: A humanistic perspective. Anchor Books.BergerP. L.2004Invitation to sociology: A humanistic perspectiveAnchor BooksSearch in Google Scholar
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). Secularization and pluralism. Internationales Jahrbuch für Religionssoziologie, 2, 73–81.BergerP. L.LuckmannT.1966Secularization and pluralismInternationales Jahrbuch für Religionssoziologie27381Search in Google Scholar
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2008). La construcción social de la realidad. (S. Zuleta, Trad.). Amorrortu.BergerP. L.LuckmannT.2008La construcción social de la realidadZuletaS.Trad.AmorrortuSearch in Google Scholar
Borgmann, A. (2013). So who am I really? Personal identity in the age of the Internet. AI and Society, (28), 15–20.BorgmannA.2013So who am I really? Personal identity in the age of the InternetAI and Society281520Search in Google Scholar
Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700.BrundidgeJ.2010Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networksJournal of Communication604680700Search in Google Scholar
Di Paolo, E. A., & De Jaegher, H. (2022). Enactive ethics: Difference becoming participation. Topoi, 41(2), 241–256.Di PaoloE. A.De JaegherH.2022Enactive ethics: Difference becoming participationTopoi412241256Search in Google Scholar
Düringer, E.-M. (2021). The moral virtue of being understanding. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 24(4), 917–932.DüringerE.-M.2021The moral virtue of being understandingEthical Theory and Moral Practice244917932Search in Google Scholar
Esteve-Del-Valle, M. (2022). Homophily and polarization in twitter political networks: A cross-country analysis. Media and Communication, 10(2). https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/4948Esteve-Del-ValleM.2022Homophily and polarization in twitter political networks: A cross-country analysisMedia and Communication102https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/4948Search in Google Scholar
Floridi, L. (2015). The Ethics of Information. Oxford University Press.FloridiL.2015The Ethics of InformationOxford University PressSearch in Google Scholar
Floridi, L. (2016). Faultless responsibility: On the nature and allocation of moral responsibility for distributed moral actions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 20160112.FloridiL.2016Faultless responsibility: On the nature and allocation of moral responsibility for distributed moral actionsPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences374208320160112Search in Google Scholar
Floridi, L. (2017). Infraethics-on the conditions of possibility of morality. Philosophy of Technology, 30, 391–394.FloridiL.2017Infraethics-on the conditions of possibility of moralityPhilosophy of Technology30391394Search in Google Scholar
Floridi, L. (2019). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford University Press.FloridiL.2019The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual designOxford University PressSearch in Google Scholar
Floridi, L. (2023). AI as agency without intelligence: On ChatGPT, large language models, and other generative models. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4358789FloridiL.2023AI as agency without intelligence: On ChatGPT, large language models, and other generative modelsSSRN Electronic Journalhttps://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4358789Search in Google Scholar
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media and Society, 12(3), 347–364.GillespieT.2010The politics of ‘platforms’New Media and Society123347364Search in Google Scholar
Griselda Lopez, D. (2021). A phenomenological approach to the study of social distance. Human Studies, 44, 171–200.Griselda LopezD.2021A phenomenological approach to the study of social distanceHuman Studies44171200Search in Google Scholar
Joas, H. (1997). G.H. Mead: A contemporary re-examination of his thought. In R. Meyer, Trad. (Ed.), Studies in contemporary German social thought. MIT Press.JoasH.1997G.H. Mead: A contemporary re-examination of his thoughtMeyerR.Trad. (Ed.)Studies in contemporary German social thoughtMIT PressSearch in Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18–66). Van Nostrand.LazarsfeldP.MertonR. K.1954Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysisFreedom and control in modern society1866Van NostrandSearch in Google Scholar
Marin, L. (2022). Enactive principles for the ethics of user interactions on social media: How to overcome systematic misunderstandings through shared meaning-making. Topoi, 41(2), 425–437.MarinL.2022Enactive principles for the ethics of user interactions on social media: How to overcome systematic misunderstandings through shared meaning-makingTopoi412425437Search in Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, (27), 415–44.McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M.2001Birds of feather: Homophily in social networksAnnual Review of Sociology2741544Search in Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1925). The genesis of the self and social control. International Journal of Ethics, 35(3), 251–277.MeadG. H.1925The genesis of the self and social controlInternational Journal of Ethics353251277Search in Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (2015). Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press.MeadG. H.2015Mind, self, and societyUniversity of Chicago PressSearch in Google Scholar
Pfadenhauer, M. (2016). In-between spaces. Pluralism and hybridity as elements of a new paradigm for religion in the modern age. Human Studies, 39, 147–159.PfadenhauerM.2016In-between spaces. Pluralism and hybridity as elements of a new paradigm for religion in the modern ageHuman Studies39147159Search in Google Scholar
Roszkowska, P., & Melé, D. (2021). Organizational factors in the individual ethical behaviour. The notion of the “organizational moral structure”. Humanistic Management Journal, 6(2), 187–209.RoszkowskaP.MeléD.2021Organizational factors in the individual ethical behaviour. The notion of the “organizational moral structure”Humanistic Management Journal62187209Search in Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1995). El Problema de la realidad social. (N. Miguez, Trad.). Amorrortu.SchützA.1995El Problema de la realidad socialMiguezN.Trad.AmorrortuSearch in Google Scholar
Steets, S. (2016). What makes people tick? And what makes a society tick? And is a theory useful for inderstanding? An interview with Peter L. Berger. Human Studies, 39, 7–25.SteetsS.2016What makes people tick? And what makes a society tick? And is a theory useful for inderstanding? An interview with Peter L. BergerHuman Studies39725Search in Google Scholar
Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2016). Constructing public space: Global perspectives on social media and popular contestation. International Journal of Communication, 10, 226–234.Van DijckJ.PoellT.2016Constructing public space: Global perspectives on social media and popular contestationInternational Journal of Communication10226234Search in Google Scholar
Verbeek, P.-P. (2015). Designing the public sphere: Information technologies and the politics of mediation. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The onlife manifesto (pp. 217–227). Springer International Publishing. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-04093-6_21VerbeekP.-P.2015Designing the public sphere: Information technologies and the politics of mediationFloridiL.(Ed.)The onlife manifesto217227Springer International Publishinghttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-04093-6_21Search in Google Scholar
Voorhoeve, A. (2011). Conversations on ethics. Oxford University Press.VoorhoeveA.2011Conversations on ethicsOxford University PressSearch in Google Scholar